World War II: Bomber Command

Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to my non-pecuniary interest shown in the Register of Members' Interests.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, for the 90th anniversary of the foundation of the Royal Air Force, they will accord greater recognition to those pilots and crew members who served in RAF Bomber Command in World War II through support for the erection of an appropriate memorial, comparable with their support for the Battle of Britain pilots' memorial.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I can assure the House of the deep appreciation that this Government have for the courage and sacrifice of those who served in Bomber Command. However, it has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments that the cost of war memorials and associated projects is met from private donations or public subscriptions. I would also remark that in 2006, a memorial to Bomber Command was dedicated at Lincoln Cathedral, which served as a homecoming beacon for the bombers during the war.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on 3 September 1940, Prime Minister Winston Churchill told the Cabinet:
	"The Fighters are our salvation, but the Bombers alone provide the means of victory",
	making it very clear that the bomber offensive was determined at the highest level, and that the offensive was carried out by young men who went out night after night on extremely dangerous missions under the constant threat of being blasted from the skies? Almost half of them—some 55,000—did not survive the ordeal. Is it not time to commemorate, in a memorial comparable with and complementary to that for the Battle of Britain, not just the heroism of the few, but also the courage of the many?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I have great sympathy with much of what the noble Lord says. It is true that many of those who joined Bomber Command were killed—as he says, more than 55,000—and the average age of those who died was 22 years. We all owe them a great debt and need to recognise their contribution. The Ministry of Defence would welcome any appropriate efforts to celebrate their achievements and to recognise their sacrifice but, as I said, the money cannot be raised from public funds. We would be quite happy to provide guidance and help and, were there to be a memorial, we would try to help with any dedication.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords—

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is time for both noble Lords. I think the House is saying that it should be the Liberal Democrats first, but of course the noble and gallant Lord must come in immediately afterwards.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister's reply is very disappointing. Indeed, the Government helped financially with the Fighter Command memorial. The achievements, let alone the sacrifice, of Bomber Command were and are appreciated by those who know. The destruction of the towns of Germany called for a large response from the German Air Force. This led to the Germans not manufacturing enough bombers and not training enough aircrew because they were all engaged in trying to control Bomber Command.

Noble Lords: Question!

Lord Mackie of Benshie: It is coming, my Lords. Albert Speer, the Minister in charge of industrial production in Hitler's Government, said that there was no question in his mind that the work of Bomber Command and the Eighth Air Force was a major factor in the defeat of Germany. I have talked too long about that, but it is worth saying. Will the Minister consider the matter again? Will she read a book called Bomber Boys by Patrick Bishop, which might enlighten her as to the achievements of these young men?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord speaks from direct experience, and I think that the House has listened to him with great care. As I said, no one in Government underestimates the contribution made by Bomber Command. I spoke, as did the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, of the very significant sacrifices that were made—ones that we should all be grateful for. May I correct what the noble Lord said about the Battle of Britain memorial? It was not taxpayers' money; the lead was the Battle of Britain Historical Society, and Westminster Council gave the site. We are happy to recognise the great contribution of Bomber Command and, I repeat, we will be happy to help in any appropriate way, but we cannot help financially. Were there to be a memorial, we would certainly help to encourage the right people to attend any dedication.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the whole House will welcome the Government's support, as I know will a now decreasing number of those who served in Bomber Command, their friends and relatives. The noble Baroness will recall that 55,573 aircrew, average age 22, lost their lives, 8,403 were badly wounded, and 9,838, having bailed out or crashed, were taken as prisoners of war. Following the evacuation of Dunkirk and until 1944, the only way that this country, which was fighting for survival, could bring the war to the enemy heartland was with strategic bombing. Does that not deserve remembrance by a memorial for a very long time into the future? Will the noble Baroness recall that it is important, not only to this Bomber Command generation but to today's Armed Forces, that they are reassured that Governments will continue to remember, long after the time has passed, what they have done?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble and gallant Lord that we all have a responsibility to remember long after the event the sacrifices that were made. I simply repeat that we would welcome any appropriate efforts to celebrate the achievements of Bomber Command. I remind the House that we are approaching the 90th anniversary of the establishment of the Royal Air Force. There will be many opportunities during the celebrations to recognise the tremendous effort that many people have made over many years to safeguard the future of this country.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords—

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are on to the ninth minute. We have to move on.

Energy: Nuclear Industry

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What efforts are being made to respond to the challenge stated on page 113 of the Energy White Paper of January 2008 to meet the need for skilled workers in the nuclear industry.

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, Government and industry recognise the challenge of ensuring that the UK has enough skilled workers to maintain and decommission existing nuclear power stations and build new ones. We are therefore improving science provision in schools, have charged the sector skills council with taking forward a training strategy and have helped set up a national skills academy for nuclear to improve the supply of specialist skills at all levels.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, that is all very well, but is the Minister aware that many of the major players on this stage, including the universities, see an urgent need for the Government to make decisions that will enable them to take their matters forward? In particular—I have given the Minister's office notice of this question—is she aware that it is now 18 months since a former Secretary of State at the DTI, Alistair Darling, foreshadowed the creation of a national nuclear laboratory and what was then called a BNFL technology centre, now known as a British technology centre, both of which will have a vital role in nurturing the skills needed for the future of a British nuclear capacity? When are Ministers going to make these decisions and announce them?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, the national nuclear laboratory was set up to protect the skills of Nexia Solutions, in particular with respect to decommissioning skills. Its major clients are the NDA as well as the site licence company at Sellafield. We will finalise the business case for the national nuclear laboratory when we are clear about the revenue stream from the site licence company. The process for contracting is going on as we speak. In the mean time, Nexia Solutions has been able to carry on providing its vital services to industry and NDA without interruption. We have not seen an interruption in skills, and we anticipate the set-up of a national nuclear laboratory soon.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that time is now of the essence? There is common agreement that we need a new generation of nuclear power stations if we are to meet our Kyoto obligations. Time is not on our side. We waited a long time while the public consultation took place; we have had the White Paper for some time; the Government have agreed their policy; but one thing is certain: we will not get that new generation of nuclear-generating capacity unless we have a skilled workforce in place at the time we need it. That time is now.

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I completely agree with my noble friend. Just today, the first phase of the pre-licensing of the generic design assessment has taken place, and all four of the designs have been successfully passed. The new phase will be announced shortly. We are working with industry as well as with universities to ensure the provision of school leavers and university graduates to deal with the skills issues. It should be noted that the modal age of skills in the nuclear industry is in the 40s, so while the matter is pressing and urgent, we have a little bit of time yet.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will be aware that we on these Benches disagree with the remarks of her noble friend regarding the desirability of the nuclear programme. Will she not accept that if we are to continue the nuclear programme, it is common ground across your Lordships' House that there is a danger that the Government will not do it properly?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I can say only that I believe strongly that we will do it properly and that nuclear power is an essential part of the energy mix to ensure that we meet our climate change obligations and have security of supply.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does Britain have the capability to design and construct a nuclear power station so that it can come on stream, as the Government's target has it, in 2020? If it does not, history will judge the Government harshly for the 10 years of delay in making a major strategic decision. Have they not failed to cherish and largely dismantled the capability we need?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, we have made a full assessment of the issue and believe that we have the capacity to ensure that there is nuclear new build in this country. The design and production of reactors is international, as it was in the case of Sizewell B where the reactor was of American design, produced in France with Japanese components. We have the ability globally to do this and the capacity in the UK manufacturing sector. We expect to win 75 per cent of the capex on nuclear new build.

Lord Krebs: My Lords, the Minister has told us that the Government require a supply of skilled people trained in physics departments in the universities of this country. Would she agree that the recent cuts in funding to physics departments through the shortfall in the Science and Technology Facilities Council is a mistake and that those cuts should now be reversed?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I emphasise that HEFCE has put aside £75 million over the next three years specifically for selected higher education institutions for stem skills related to engineering which are expensive to teach. The Research Council has also put aside funding specifically for nuclear skills.

Lord Desai: My Lords, will the Government make sure that the nuclear plants are not only delivered on time but also at the proper cost—not with the usual 300 per cent overruns —and that they produce power economically?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I am pleased to say that that will be a risk carried by the private sector.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, what is the Minister doing to increase the supply of A-level maths students? What is she doing about the shortage of Royal Navy nuclear propulsion engineers?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, we have announced a £140 million strategy over the next three years to support stem skills in schools and have made a statutory entitlement to a course to study two science GCSEs. This involves recruiting and training teachers as well as funding stem awareness with 11,700 engineers acting as role models in schools. On the supply of engineers to the Royal Navy, that is also a part of the HEFCE scheme that I mentioned earlier.

NHS: Private Medicine

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to change their policy of withdrawing National Health Service care from patients who choose to buy their own private prescription drugs.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, there is no question of withdrawing NHS care from anyone. However, no Government have ever allowed—indeed, none of the main political parties supports—an individual simultaneously being an NHS and a privately funded patient within the same episode of care.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, is the Minister not embarrassed that the National Health Service threatened to withdraw treatment from a woman who wanted to spend £15,000 of her own money on cancer treatment that might have saved her? The reason given by the Minister in another place was that this would create a two-tier health service. At the moment, the taxpayer spends £96 billion on the National Health Service. Private individuals spend £30 billion on help for the aged, dentistry, private treatment, private drugs and over-the-counter drugs. If that is not a two-tier health service, what is it?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I realise that this issue has been in the news recently and I understand why noble Lords would want to raise it, as these cases are highly emotive. Many arguments about top-up payments centre around cancer drugs that do not yet have NICE approval, have been rejected by NICE or have not yet been licensed. NHS bodies must provide drugs that have NICE approval, but it is for local decision whether they provide drugs that await approval, have been rejected or do not have a licence.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, is consideration being given to setting up a cross-party working party to look at top-ups or co-payments? This extends beyond cancer drugs to the new biologic drugs, which can be potent disease modifiers, and to aids and appliances—high-tech ones such as different types of cardiac defibrillator and low-tech ones such as different types of wheelchair wheels, which are not available on the NHS but which patients are not allowed to pay the top-up for.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, a founding principle of the NHS enshrined in every code of practice—most recently in the 2003 code of practice—is that someone is either a private patient or an NHS patient. Patients can be private patients and decide to resume their treatment as NHS patients but they cannot in one episode of treatment be treated on the NHS and then as part of the same episode be allowed to pay money for more drugs. I would be surprised if those on the opposition Front Benches felt differently from the Government about this matter because it is a fundamental principle. We need to think carefully about any suggestion of moving from that principle.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords—

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, tried to get in earlier. I think that it is his turn, after which we will take my noble friend.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, thank you; I will be brief. Will the Minister take a look at the French system, which is a mixed system and which works a great deal better?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I will make sure that I do.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, my noble friend talks about fundamental principles, which are all about lifesaving activity. Under the National Health Service a person is entitled to have treatment. If the National Health Service refuses to provide the particular medicines required to ensure that that person's life will continue, is it not legitimate that that person should be able to buy those medicines outside the National Health Service and still be a National Health Service patient?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, it is important to clarify this. Mixing private payment with NHS treatment is not only inconsistent with the founding principles. If a private patient arrives at an NHS facility, of course they will not be refused treatment; they will be treated in exactly the same way. Also, PCTs have a statutory duty to fund the use of drugs that are recommended by NICE. If, however, a patient opts to have private treatment, they cannot have it within the treatment that they are already receiving from the NHS. I am sure that my noble friend will understand that that would mean that there would be a subsidy. However, in terms of drugs—

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister would agree that a child would not be denied state education if their parents were also giving them private tuition and paying for it. I cannot understand why she is arguing in the way that she is about private prescriptions for health service patients. Could she admit that it is perhaps a Stalinist leftover from the days before new Labour embraced the market?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I do not think that that is the case at all.

Lord Mawhinney: My Lords, would the Minister be kind enough to set out for me in a letter the legal basis on which the NHS refuses to treat any British citizen who is entitled to universal treatment under the NHS, and will she put a copy of that letter in the Library?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I would be happy to do that. The noble Lord needs to understand this. NHS patients indeed have the right to expect high-quality healthcare, and it is the responsibility of their PCTs to ensure that they get it. The decisions about their treatment are taken locally, and ultimately the resources available to the NHS are limited. In a system that offers universal care free at the point of need, there can be no absolute right to treatment, but that has always been the case.

Olympic Games 2008: Tibet

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether recent events in Tibet have caused them to reconsider their advice to athletes chosen to represent Great Britain in the Olympic Games.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, it is a matter for the British Olympic Association and British Paralympic Association to decide what advice is given to athletes representing Great Britain at the Olympic Games. However, as a Government we remain extremely concerned about the situation in Tibet. We urge restraint by all sides and a return to dialogue without preconditions to find a sustainable and equitable solution to the underlying issues.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I am not asking him to support a boycott of the Olympics—certainly not at this stage—but what is his response to the statement made by the President of the European Parliament yesterday that politicians should consider boycotting the opening ceremonies if the violence in Tibet continues? Will he give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will make it clear to the Chinese authorities that, if the brutality being used against the demonstrators in Tibet and now elsewhere in China continues, that will jeopardise people's opinion of the suitability of China as a venue for a great sporting event that is based on individual freedom and cultural and ethnic diversity?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, on my noble friend's first point about whether to boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics, I think that the Olympics is a total event and that you cannot pick and choose your courses; if there is support for the Olympics, it is support for the entire event. On his second point, I have already made it clear in the media that China will damage its own interests and the reputation of the event, perhaps irrevocably, if there is extensive violence in the coming days and weeks in a crackdown on Tibet. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said today in another place that he had spoken to Prime Minister Wen of China this morning and had asked him to show both restraint and a willingness to negotiate with the Dalai Lama.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the Minister agree—I think that he has already said so—that the world, maybe led by us, needs to put all the pressure that it can to curtail abuses of civil rights in China? Will he also agree that this has no impact on the Olympic Games per se? I do not agree with him that the Olympic Games will be damaged by this. The Olympic Games should not under any circumstances be used as a political tool.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, let me completely confirm that point. We as a Government insist that any boycott of the Olympic Games would be a misplaced action, but China needs to be aware that the reputation of the Games and its own reputation will suffer if there is violence against the people of Tibet in the coming days and weeks. So no to a boycott but yes to China exercising real restraint at a time when a lot of blood could easily be shed.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, did the Prime Minister in his discussions this morning urge the Chinese leadership to allow the foreign media and organisations such as Amnesty International into Tibet and the surrounding provinces? If so, did he have any success? What access will the foreign media be given in China during the Olympics?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I am not aware whether the Prime Minister raised specifically the issue of the foreign media in his conversation this morning. Unfortunately, a number of foreign media have been forced to leave Tibet in the past few days, as the noble Baroness suggested. We are monitoring the situation carefully. We have also sought, so far without success, to send British diplomats to Tibet to get a first-hand view of what is happening. As for the period of the Olympics, it has been agreed with the International Olympic Committee that journalists will have access to the whole country and will follow the Olympic flame when it passes through Tibet.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a policy of repression will never bring stability to Tibet? Has any consideration been given to raising these human rights issues in the United Nations Human Rights Council?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I completely affirm the noble Lord's first point that there is only one solution to the problem of Tibet, which is to take up the position held by the Dalai Lama, who is demanding not independence but autonomy based on negotiation and full respect for the sovereignty of China. That is a basis for a peaceful resolution of this situation, which we hope both sides will seize and move on. A reference to the Human Rights Council is being considered, but the pros and cons need to be weighed carefully.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, while the Olympic Games have a massive capacity for good, that nevertheless pales into insignificance side by side with the consideration that Tibet, this small country of 5.5 million people, has been raped and subjugated over the past half century, with many of its people murdered? This imperialistic power of China is now seeking to ingratiate and sanitise itself in the eyes of the western world. Does the Minister not agree that international justice should take precedence over the exigencies of international sport?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister also said today in another place that he would meet the Dalai Lama when he visited London in May. That is an indication of our respect for the people of Tibet in the terrible suffering that they have undergone. I do not agree that the solution to this is a boycott of the Olympics. I am in good company, as the Dalai Lama himself has said that there should not be a boycott of the Olympics.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Dalai Lama has conducted himself over many years with great restraint and dignity on these issues, as I am sure everyone in this House would affirm? Does he further accept that, while we should honour and indeed encourage the conscience of individual athletes attending the Games, these are properly matters that belong with Her Majesty's Government and that—witness the 1936 Munich Games—it is the manner of people's participation that sometimes leaves a long-lasting record of the dignity of all cultures and people?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an extraordinarily important point. We expect our athletes to respect British values of courtesy and respect for the country where the Games are being held but also that supremely important value of speaking the truth as they see it and speaking openly of what they see. However, it is enormously dangerous to compare Beijing to the situation in 1936. China is a country that has come out in a dramatic way in recent years. It has engaged in the world in ways that have led not just to a reduction in the poverty of its people but to incremental improvements in its internal political freedom. We have all—China and the rest of the world—pursued a strategy of engaging; we have not wanted to isolate China and force it to turn back on itself. We should not forgo that strategy at this point. There should be pressure to cease from violence but no disengagement from China.

Intergovernmental Organisations Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Baroness Hooper be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Baroness Flather, resigned.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clause 1
	Schedule 1Clause 2Schedule 2Clause 3Schedule 3Clauses 4 to 6Schedule 4Clauses 7 to 13Schedule 5Clauses 14 to 23Schedule 6Clauses 24 to 39Schedule 7Clauses 40 to 47Schedule 8Clause 48Schedule 9Clause 49Schedule 10Clauses 50 and 51Schedule 11Clause 52Schedule 12Clause 53Schedule 13Clauses 54 to 67Schedule 14Clauses 68 to 72 Schedule 15Clause 73Schedule 16Clause 74Schedule 17Clauses 75 to 89Schedules 18 and 19Clauses 90 to 117Schedule 20Clauses 118 to 121Schedule 21Clauses 122 to 125Schedule 22Clause 126Schedule 23Clauses 127 to 139Schedule 24Clauses 140 to 143Schedule 25Clauses 144 and 145Schedules 26 and 27Clause 146Schedule 28Clauses 147 to 151.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Moved, That this Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
	On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
	Then, Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with, Bill read a third time, and passed.

National Security Strategy

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"The primary duty of government—our abiding obligation—is, and will always be, the safety of all British people and the protection of the British national interest. Following approval by the National Security Committee and the Cabinet, the Government are today publishing the first national security strategy for this country. "It states that while our obligation to protect the British people and the British national interest is fixed and unwavering, the nature of the threats and risks we face has, in recent decades, changed beyond all recognition and confounds all the old assumptions about national defence and international security. As the strategy makes clear, new threats demand new approaches. A radically updated and much more co-ordinated response is now required. "For most of the last half-century the main threat was unmistakable: a Cold War adversary. Today, the potential threats we face come from far less predictable sources, both state and non-state. Twenty years ago the terrorist threat to Britain was principally that from the IRA. Now it comes from loosely affiliated global networks that threaten us and other nations across continents. "Once, when there was instability in faraway regions or countries, we had a choice: to become involved or not. Today, no country is, in the old sense, far away, when the consequences of regional instability and terrorism—and other risks such as climate change, poverty, mass population movements and even organised crime—reverberate quickly around the globe."To address these great insecurities—war, terrorism and now climate change, disease and poverty; threats which redefine national security not just as the protection of the state but as the protection of all people—we need to mobilise all the resources available to us: the hard power of our military, police, security and intelligence services; the persuasive force and reach of diplomacy and cultural connections; the authority of strengthened global institutions, which can deploy both hard and soft power; and, not least because arms and authority will never be enough, the power of ideas, of shared values and hopes that can win over hearts and minds and forge new partnerships for progress and tolerance, involving government, the private and voluntary sectors and community and faith organisations, as well as individuals. "Mr Speaker, the foundation of our approach is to maintain strong, balanced, flexible and deployable Armed Forces. I pay tribute to Britain's service men and women—and those civilians deployed on operations—who every day face danger doing vital work in the service of our country and, in particular, remember today the sacrifices made for our country by all who have been injured or lost their lives in recent years in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theatres of war. "To raise recruitment and improve retention, we will match our new public information recruitment campaign, launched this week, with the Government's first ever cross-departmental strategy for supporting our service personnel, their families and veterans, to be published shortly. In the last two years we have raised general pay levels and introduced the first tax-free bonus of nearly £400 a month for those on operations, as well as a council tax refund. Today the Secretary of State for Defence is announcing new retention incentives for our Armed Forces. There will be increased commitment bonuses of up to £15,000 for longer-serving personnel. Starting with a new £20 million home purchase fund, we will respond to the demand for more affordable home ownership for service men and women. "To meet the threats ahead, after a trebling of its budget since 2001, the Security Service will rise in number to 4,000, twice the level of 2001. We will be increasing yet again, this time by 10 per cent, the resources for the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, which brings together 16 departments, including the police and intelligence agencies, and giving it a new focus on the longer-term challenge of investigating the path to violent extremism."I can confirm that, to meet future security needs, we have set aside funds to modernise our interception capability; that at GCHQ and in the Secret Intelligence Service we are developing new technical capabilities to root out terrorism; and that the new Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, which we set up last year, will provide a higher level of protection against internet- or cyber-based threats."The strategy published today will be backed up by a new approach to engage and inform the public. Two years ago we removed from being classified as secret the information on threat levels for the UK. We will now go much further. Starting later this year, we will openly publish for the first time a national register of risks—information that was previously held confidentially within government—so the British public can see at first hand the challenges we face and the levels of threat we have assessed. "To harness a much wider range of expertise and experience from outside government and help us plan for the future, we are inviting business, academics, community organisations and military and security experts from outside government to join a new national security forum that will advise the recently constituted National Security Committee. "Having accepted the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee—I thank it for its work—to separate the position of chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee from policy adviser to the Government, and appointed Mr Alex Allan as chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, I can confirm that, as proposed by the Butler review, his responsibility will be solely to provide Ministers with security assessments formulated independently of the political process. "We will immediately go ahead to introduce a resolution of both Houses, in advance of any future legislation, that will enshrine an enhanced scrutiny and public role for the Intelligence and Security Committee. This will lead to more parliamentary debate on security matters, public hearings on the national security strategy and, as promised, greater transparency over appointments to the committee, so that the committee can not only review intelligence and security but perform a public role more akin to the practice of Select Committees in reporting to and informing the country on security matters. "Emerging from all the experience and lessons learnt of the past decade is the clear conclusion that we are at our strongest when we combine the resources of our military, police and security and intelligence services with effective diplomacy, and when we work closely with international partners to confront the new global challenges and bring about change. This approach emphasises the importance of strengthening our key diplomatic and military alliances with: the United States, our strongest bilateral partner; NATO, the cornerstone of our security; our central role at the heart of an outward-facing European Union; and our long lasting and deep commitment to the Commonwealth and to working through international institutions. "Britain will be at the forefront of diplomatic action on nuclear weapons control and reduction, offering a new bargain to non-nuclear powers. On the one hand, we will help them, and we have proposed the creation of a new international system to help non-nuclear states acquire the new sources of energy they need, including our proposed global enrichment bond; and we are today inviting interested countries to an international conference on these themes later this year. "But in return we will seek agreement on tougher controls aimed at reducing weapons and preventing proliferation—first, by ending the stalemates on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; and secondly, by achieving after 2010 a more robust implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with the aim of accelerating disarmament among possessor states, preventing proliferation and ultimately freeing the world from nuclear weapons. A new priority to meet the dangers both of proliferation to new states and of material falling into the hands of terrorists will be tougher action—not just against potential proliferators such as Iran, but new action against suppliers—seeking to strengthen export control regimes and build a more effective forensic nuclear capability, to determine the true source of material employed in any nuclear device. Having already reduced the numbers of our operationally available warheads by 20 per cent and made our expertise available for the verifiable elimination of nuclear warheads, I confirm that we, Britain, are ready to play our part in further disarmament."As great a potential threat as nuclear weapons proliferation—and as demanding of a co-ordinated international response—is the risk from failing and unstable states. The national security strategy proposes a new departure, learning the lessons from recent conflicts ranging from Rwanda and Bosnia to Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. We will create a standby international civilian capability so that, for fragile and failing states, we can act quickly and comprehensively by combining the humanitarian, peacekeeping, stabilisation and reconstruction support that these countries need. In the same way that we have military forces ready to respond to conflict, we must have civilian experts and professionals ready to deploy quickly to assist failing states and to help rebuild countries emerging from conflict, putting them on the road to economic and political recovery. Britain will start by making available a 1,000-strong UK civilian standby capacity, which will include police, emergency service professionals, judges and trainers. I call on EU and NATO partners to set high and ambitious targets for their contributions."Between now and 2011, Britain is offering £600 million for conflict prevention, resolution and stabilisation work around the world, including in Israel and Palestine, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kenya and the Balkans. As we assume our presidency of the UN Security Council in May, we propose an appeal by the UN Secretary-General for a co-ordinated crisis recovery fund that will provide immediate support for reconstruction, and to which Britain will contribute. Specifically, because we know the importance of peace in Darfur, I am announcing more help from Britain to train, equip and deploy African troops for the joint UN-African Union peacekeeping operation. Because of the importance of peace in Somalia, I can announce that Britain will help pay for 850 Burundian troops, as part of the African Union peacekeeping force there."Because of the critical importance of economic and political reconstruction complementing military action as the elected Afghan Government face down the Taliban, we propose an integrated civilian-military headquarters, headed by a civilian, which will be constituted in Helmand. In Iraq, where we have already brought electricity and water supplies to over 1 million citizens, we are stepping up our contribution to the work of long-term economic reconstruction by supporting the Basra Development Commission, led for the British by businessman Michael Wareing, who is doing an excellent job. To maximise our contribution to all the new challenges of peacekeeping, humanitarian work and stabilisation and reconstruction, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence is also announcing this afternoon that, as part of a wider review, the Government will examine how our Reserve Forces can more effectively help with stabilisation and reconstruction in post-conflict zones around the world. This year sees the 100th anniversary of the Territorial Army and I pay tribute to the service men and women in our reserves, who are such an essential element of our nation's defence."The security strategy published today also makes clear that, as well as being able to respond to crises as they develop, we must tackle the underlying drivers of conflict and instability—poverty, inequality and poor governance. Focusing on areas where poverty breeds conflict, we have quadrupled Britain's aid budget and are pushing for bold international action in 2008 to meet the millennium development goals. On climate change and competition for natural resources, we are leading the way in arguing for a post-2012 international agreement and a new global fund to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change, including in the areas most under stress and therefore most likely to suffer instability as well as humanitarian disaster. On disease and global pandemics, our priority, with the World Health Organisation, is to improve early warning systems, increase global vaccine supplies and help put in place a more co-ordinated global response. Because of the importance of building stability and countering violent extremism in the Middle East and south Asia, we are increasing the number of Foreign Office staff in those regions by 30 per cent."Among all the security challenges to citizens of this country covered by this new strategy, the most serious and urgent remains the threat from international terrorism. The head of MI5 has said that today Britain faces 30 known plots, and 200 networks and around 2,000 individuals are being monitored. There have been 58 convictions for terrorism in just over a year, and the Home Secretary is announcing today that we will now have four regional counterterrorism units and four regional intelligence units, significantly increasing anti-terrorism police capability in the regions."Since the events of 11 September, on suspicion that they are a threat to national security or fostering extremism, 300 individuals have been prevented from entering the country. Now, backing up our unified border agency, compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals and our proposals in the Counter-Terrorism Bill that in unique circumstances we can extend detention to ensure full investigation of terror threats, the Government will match stronger action against those we suspect of stirring up tensions with collaborative work with our European partners to strengthen the EU rules on deporting criminals—a matter I will be discussing with President Sarkozy next week. "For action against terrorism and organised crime, it is important also to strengthen Europol and Eurojust, ensure rapid and secure exchange of information across borders, and speed up both the extradition of criminals and the confiscation of their assets. Starting with the United Arab Emirates, we are signing more agreements so that, once the assets of a convicted criminal are seized in one country with the assistance of the other, both countries will get a share of the proceeds. "Our new approach to security also means improved local resilience against emergencies, building and strengthening local capacity to respond effectively to a range of circumstances from floods to possible terrorism incidents—not the old Cold War idea of civil defence, but a new form of civil protection that combines expert preparedness at a local level for potential emergencies with greater local engagement of individuals and families themselves. The Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary will report next month on additional measures we propose for young people, in colleges and universities, and in prisons and working with faith communities, to disrupt the promoters of violent extremism—all building upon the support of the vast majority of people, of all faiths and backgrounds, who condemn terrorists and their actions. "The national security strategy shows a Britain resolute in the face of an unstable and increasingly uncertain international security landscape. It demonstrates the lessons we and other countries have learnt in recent years—that we must: expand our policing, security and intelligence capacity, which we are doing; do more to prevent conflict, including by more effective international control of arms, which we are doing; strengthen the effectiveness of international institutions to promote stability and reconstruction, and we have put forward proposals on this today; and always be vigilant and never leave ourselves vulnerable, supporting, and at all times and wherever necessary strengthening, as we do today, our defences and civilian support for national security. I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this important Statement. The whole House shares an immense sense of debt to the police, security services and our Armed Forces for the often unseen, and sometimes never known, work that they do to protect our country.
	The House will want to explore this new strategy, which is being billed as a unique event in national history, very closely. There is of course unparalleled expertise in this House on these matters.
	Will the noble Baroness confirm that, while the Statement bore the mark of the Prime Minister's hand, a central place in drafting the strategy as a whole was played by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead? If so, the doctrine of parliamentary accountability would greatly reinforce the case for an early debate in this House.
	Of course, we welcome the idea of a national security approach. Two years ago, my party said that it was time for a national security strategy. I am glad that the Prime Minister is now joining in this.
	The noble Lord, Lord West, is also right to warn that issues affecting our national security—from terrorism, to cyber attack, to nuclear proliferation and energy security—are proliferating. The terrorist threat is certainly spreading multinationally. Incidentally, does this not confirm the warnings given to the Prime Minister and his colleagues by the Joint Intelligence Committee before the Iraq war that invasion would worsen the Islamist terrorist threat to us at home? What is the noble Baroness's assessment of that? Does she accept that the result is as was then predicted? Is it not essential that we have a full inquiry into the whole saga of our engagement in the Iraq War and discover what lessons must be learnt?
	On cyber attack, are the Government concerned that this country has been probed by cyber assaults on several occasions and that some suspect the involvement of national Governments? There are major threats: real, emerging and, perhaps, re-emerging. However, does the noble Baroness not see that a kitchen-sink Statement of this kind, which includes sending a civil commissioner to Helmand province, paying for 850 Burundian soldiers and re-announced council tax refunds for soldiers—all that detail—risks confusing the wood for the trees? Did not too many of the grave crises we faced in history arise from not looking in the right place at the right time? Are there not dangers in lumping long-term problems, such as global warming and disease, with council tax refunds?
	A national security strategy will work only if it is put in place and carried out properly. Institutions in the UK need to be properly organised to deliver a national security approach. Therefore, we very much regret that the Prime Minister has missed the opportunity to establish a proper national security council. The existing committee clearly needs its authority reinforced. On the "Today" programme this morning, the noble Lord, Lord West, said that the Government had concluded that they did not need a national security council. However, the Prime Minister, in reply to my right honourable friend Mr Cameron at Prime Minister's Questions today, said that he already had one—so which answer is correct?
	It is essential that intelligence assessment and activity is, as the Government suggest, entirely independent of the political side, as was recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his review. Never again must we see in this country the outrage of spin doctors e-mailing intelligence officers about their job. Will the noble Baroness confirm that Mr Carter, the Prime Minister's new head honcho of spin, will have no access to security material?
	The United Kingdom must retain the power, properly funded, to intervene abroad militarily when necessary, but we must understand that military operations abroad have consequences for security at home. Lately, that has been too often forgotten. At the same time, our Armed Forces have had to step in repeatedly—in the fuel crisis, in the foot and mouth outbreak and in firefighting—to bale out poor domestic planning.
	Why have the Government still not banned Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group that poisons young minds against our country and way of life? Why did we not follow the Irish Government in barring Ibrahim Moussawi, a spokesman for Hizbollah and an apologist for terror, who recently conducted a lecture tour of the United Kingdom?
	Why, despite the urgent need for secure borders, do Ministers still refuse to create a proper border police force with enforcement powers? Can the noble Baroness tell us why, in the new spirit of openness, the Government do not publish the report of the noble Lord, Lord West, which aims to improve security in crowded places and protect critical national infrastructure in the event of attack? I repeat my request to the noble Baroness, to which I am sure she will agree, that all these matters should be discussed in a government debate, one perhaps headed by the noble Lord, Lord West, and responded to by my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones.
	I welcome two things. First, there was no mention of the maximum 42-day detention without trial. I assure the noble Baroness that there is no consensus about going beyond 28 days' detention. The Government have tried to make a case for that, which we do not think has been met and will oppose the relevant provisions of the terrorism Bill when it arrives here. Secondly, the Government appear to be backing away from their wasteful and ineffective plan to impose ID cards on the British people. Biometric visas are one thing, but spending billions registering and tracking children and their grannies on trips to Portsmouth is quite another. Neither compulsory ID cards, nor the absurd totem of 40-day detention, featured in this massive security Statement. The noble Lord, Lord West, may shudder if the phone rings from No. 10 after he has been on the "Today" programme, but he should hold fast to his course. If he does so the whole House will be grateful for that.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I wish to be associated with the tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to our police servicemen and to the security services. They do great service, in some danger, to the benefit of us all. The best tribute that we can pay them is to provide a system of political checks and balances, whereby Parliament shoulders its responsibilities in this matter and where we avoid, if possible, asking the Armed Forces and others to carry out actions based on misjudgments, misinformation and down-right folly. At the outset of a new strategy for security, the best tribute we can pay our Armed Forces, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, indicated, is to have an inquiry now into the origins of the decision-making that led us to the war in Iraq.
	Parliament would have done its duty better five years ago if the Conservative Party had not been in the claque of cheerleaders for war and had done a proper job as the Opposition by questioning Ministers. Be that as it may, the time is now more than right for such an inquiry and the precedents are there.
	On the basis of this new strategy, of course we welcome an overview of strategy in these areas. We are second to no one in our determination to give full security to the British people. The threats are new. The challenge to Parliament is still there. How we meet those threats properly and effectively, while retaining the civil liberties which make us, in a full sense, a liberal democracy, will put heavy responsibilities on Parliament. With a Statement of this length, there is certainly a need for an early and full debate, so that the expertise that exists in this House can be deployed on its contents, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said.
	I have one point to make on the exchange in the other place. When my right honourable friend Nick Clegg raised the question of the missile defence system, apparently the Prime Minister said that that was nothing to do with the United Kingdom. That is an extremely disturbing response and reaction. Probably the Lord President would like to clarify that because we are deeply involved in it. There are reports in American papers saying that if the Poles back out, we will be next in line to get even more deeply involved in something on which there has not been a full national debate.
	We welcome many of the proposed initiatives. Does the Lord President not agree that many of them will need the full co-operation of our colleagues in Europe for them to be at their most effective? The sooner we get Europe onto a working basis, looking at these real priorities for our own and for Europe's security, the better. We welcome the initiatives for the failing states. In recent times, it has been absurd to find that there are hold ups because no helicopters are available anywhere in Europe, or some such thing. Matters have to be improved.
	On parliamentary scrutiny of the security services, I welcome what is in this document. I realise that to my left is the brooding presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, who will no doubt intervene to tell us that this will bring the security services to rack and ruin. I disagree with her; the best and most effective security services are those that are exposed to proper parliamentary scrutiny. The lessons from this country and elsewhere are that the security services are at their least effective, and can do most damage to the countries that they serve, when they operate without proper accountability and scrutiny by the relevant parliament.
	We also welcome the nuclear initiative, which I hope in part reflects the influence of my noble friend Lady Williams, who has been advising the Prime Minister on these matters and putting forward many of precisely these proposals. We worry about the contradiction between activity on soft diplomacy and the effect of our Foreign Office—we support that—and the fact that, as was demonstrated in a recent debate that we instigated in this House, we are cutting back on the Diplomatic Service. Although we may be putting diplomats into hotspots, we are cutting back in other areas. I was recently in Tunisia, where we are cutting back on diplomacy; in such posts we might find gaps in our information and influence.
	We welcome the Statement so far as it goes. We want to know far more about the national security forum, which should not be seen by the Prime Minister as a safe option for Parliament. Security strategy must be examined most carefully in this House and the other place. We welcome the promise of more parliamentary debates. We need one on this document very soon to make sure that, although the defence of the realm remains the first responsibility of government, that responsibility is under the scrutiny of a very alert and active Parliament.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for what I think was a general welcome for the strategy. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that I appreciate what the Conservatives put forward a couple of years ago. What is critical about the way in which this approach has been brought together is that it is the first time, as I said in the Statement, that we have pulled together the different strands to create this strategy. It is important that we look at it in the round. It is not for me to determine whether there is a debate; the usual channels must discuss that. I am sure that they have listened with great care to what both noble Lords have said about their desire to discuss the detail of the Statement and, more especially, that of the document. I am sure that they will have discussions to ensure that that debate can be facilitated if possible in whatever way works best for your Lordships' House.
	Both noble Lords requested an inquiry into Iraq; that also came up when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed the Statement in the Commons. I can only repeat what he said: that the time for an inquiry is not when the Ministry of Defence is—rightly—spending its resources on and looking to the theatres of Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, but when the troops are back in the UK. It would be wrong to put resources into an inquiry at this point. Noble Lords may disagree with that but, frankly, the most appropriate time for that is when one is able to devote resources to doing it properly and effectively. I am sure that that will be taken forward.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, felt that, with regard to detail, this was a bit of a kitchen sink. When presenting Statements, it is important to be able to give the level of detail that will indicate the Government's commitment to the issues raised in a strategy and ensure that people understand that those commitments are not just words but turn into actions—that resources are made available and that there are details about why the resources have been made available and what is being sought with them. When noble Lords read the strategy in detail, I hope that they will see the ways in which the Government have turned the vision of a strategy on security into the reality for the people whom we are trying to support in the many areas that the strategy covered. The reply that Mr Cameron got on the national security council was that we already had one. That fits exactly with what my noble friend Lord West, who played a significant part in putting the strategy together, said, and we are sorry that Mr Cameron apparently missed it—never mind.
	The noble Lord has asked before why we have not banned Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the answer is the same: the legislation is very clear, and we monitor organisations very carefully to make sure that those that should be banned under the legislation are banned. We are not at that point, and it is being monitored. Equally, Mr Moussawi's visa was reviewed, and it was decided not to revoke it at this point.
	On the broader issues that noble Lords have raised, particularly the 42 days and the issues that will come before us in legislation, we will no doubt debate them at great length, and I look forward to that. The Government's position has always been that we should be clear that when evidence is presented to us that we may need to hold people for longer than 28 days—noble Lords will know that I and my noble friend have many times in your Lordships' House discussed the reasons for that, which are partly to do with technology and partly to do with the need to gain information from other countries—we should have at our disposal the capacity to do it in those exceptional and, we hope, rare circumstances. It is much better to discuss and deliberate on those issues in advance of that need; I fear being forced to make decisions too close to the time because of incidents that had occurred. From the evidence that we have before us—noble Lords will debate this at length in the legislation—it is clear that that time may be approaching and we should therefore discuss and deliberate on it. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said about opposing it. That does not surprise me in the least, but I hope that when noble Lords hear the rationality of the debate, we will be able to get consensus in your Lordships' House that it is important to have on the statute book, with careful political, judicial and parliamentary safeguards, that ability to keep our country safe. That must be the paramount reason on which we operate.
	The question the right honourable Mr Clegg asked in the other House was, I think, whether the missile defence system will be here. The answer that my right honourable friend gave was that it will be in the Czech Republic and Poland—I am doing this from memory as I was watching from the Gallery. There was nothing wrong with the question or the answer. The answer was correct for the question. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked a broader question about the involvement of the UK. Discussions are ongoing; the noble Lord would not expect anything else in terms of our discussions with the US. I agree with him about co-operation across Europe with our European partners. It is an important element in what we do, although in much of what was said in the Statement the role of NATO is also essential. I am grateful for the welcome for the important work we have done on failing states. I am waiting for the noble Baroness, Lady Park, to ask a question on the ISC. I know she will ask me; in fact, I think she would agree that I have prompted to her to do so, so I shall deal with that specifically. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who has done extraordinary work on nuclear proliferation which I hope is reflected in the Statement.
	I hope I have answered as many questions as I can within my time.

Lord Boyce: My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the VT Group. At the moment the Ministry of Defence is in meltdown because the budget it has been given is totally inadequate to service the demands of the defence programme in the short, medium and long term. We thus see woeful shortcomings in readiness levels, as set out in the defence planning assumptions; we see ships unable to meet their sailing programmes because of logistic underresourcing; we see troops unable to train on the equipment they will use in theatre; we see debilitating mini-saving measures being inflicted upon our service establishments, which completely undermine quality of life; and we also see our future programme, which will ensure our ability to fight future wars, being reprofiled out of sight because there is no money to pay for it. Future-proofing has gone out of the window as we struggle to deal with how to manage today.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are 20 minutes of questions on the Statement. I apologise, but the noble and gallant Lord must finish or there will not be time.

Lord Boyce: My Lords, if the Government are serious about delivering the national security strategy, how do they intend to ensure, to paraphrase part of the Statement, that the military can be responsibly mobilised if they continue to short change the military in the way they are doing at the moment?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for bringing his remarks to a close. I did not want to cut him off but I am conscious of the time. A very useful discussion took place in my office between the Secretary of State for Defence and noble Lords. The noble and gallant Lord was away and could not be there. I had a nice letter from at least one of the noble Lords who participated about how useful and valuable they found the opportunity to put forward their comments directly to the Secretary of State and to my noble friend Lady Taylor.
	It is very clear that there is an increase in the budget for defence. If the noble and gallant Lord looks through the strategy he will see that many of the issues that were raised with me by colleagues in your Lordships' House have been addressed by the Ministry of Defence in thinking through what needs to be done about retention, about training and so on, issues which are of great concern to him. I do not agree with his analysis.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their comprehensive and energetic approach. Will my noble friend confirm that there is no suggestion intended in the Government's Statement that the Joint Intelligence Committee has at any time been influenced in its assessments by inappropriate political considerations or pressures?
	As the Government seek to inform the public about, and engage them in, the range of threats to their security by publishing a national register of risks, how do they plan to influence media presentation and public attitudes, to ensure that people do not either panic or shut their eyes and simply hope that this menagerie of horrors will go away, but instead maintain a sensible alertness? Do the Government accept that at hearings of the Intelligence and Security Committee held in public, nothing of any sensitivity or significance will be said? If scrutiny by Parliament of the agencies is to be enhanced, will not the Intelligence and Security Committee need the powers, the will and the resources to ensure that it can reach anywhere within the entrails of the agencies, and will the Government facilitate that?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The committee has the powers to which he refers. Although I am still waiting for the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, before I get into the detail, I agree on the issues to do with the committee. He is right about the principle that issues of sensitivity must not be discussed in public. I also agree that it will be very important to engage the media and the public in the appropriate way to ensure that they do not panic but find the information of value and feel themselves party to what we are trying to do on security. I shall have to come back to my noble friend with more detail, but he has raised a very important point.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, as the brooding presence, perhaps I may say yet again that, although there are many good things in the Statement, it is totally mad to think of having open discussions and open meetings in the ISC. Agents will not come forward to be recruited if they think that is going to happen; agencies such as the CIA will be very reluctant to tell us what they are doing; and, not least, it is absolutely idiotic to think that only people of goodwill are going to be earnestly asking, "Are we doing the right thing?". There will be many people of ill will taking advantage of the situation. That is something no one can get round.
	My second point, about which I feel equally strongly, concerns the idea of investigations within the services. Inside the services there is a policy of strict need to know. When I left Moscow after two years, the day after ended all my access to whatever was happening on the Soviet Union; it was no longer my business. Inside the services, that has been a vital safeguard. If we were to have investigators coming and saying, "That is a very interesting file; there is a reference to it so I would like to see that as well", it will destroy a system and make agents feel very unsafe. So, in terms of recruitment and producing intelligence, I suggest that the present system is admirable. The services have talked freely to the ISC as it was and is constituted, but no service should be exposed to an ambitious MP—I think there may be some—with a useful media friend asking some interesting questions. At this stage and at all stages, the services should be protected. You will simply have to trust us.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall quickly try to divide up the different issues that we have tried to address within the Statement. First, the Statement refers to the need for Parliament to have more discussion and debate about security issues. Noble Lords have already asked for more debate in this House on the strategy and, in general, that is a good thing. I think the noble Baroness would agree with that.
	Secondly, the function of the ISC in terms of its ability to educate and inform is inevitably underestimated. Perhaps in that arena one would see the opportunity to do things, if one liked, in public. I do not think that anybody is suggesting that evidence of a sensitive nature would ever be provided by the services in public. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, in response to a question in another place and, subsequently, in other discussions that I have been party to this afternoon, has made it clear that the balance that he is looking for is the opportunity for more debate and discussion about security issues while not, at any point, wishing to put the services at risk.
	We will not only have to convince the noble Baroness, but, obviously, my right honourable friend and others will have been talking to the services. We would not wish to do anything to damage the way that we work with the services or, indeed, as the noble Baroness said to me in the Corridor, recruitment and retention in those services. That is very important. The investigations are generic; they would not be able to do what the noble Baroness fears. I understand that they have happened satisfactorily in the past and they would take place in that way.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, towards the end of the Statement, the Leader of the House referred to 30 known terrorist plots and 58 convictions in the past year. The Terrorism Act, as she will know, contains many offences at the minor or less serious end of the spectrum. Last summer, five young Muslims were convicted under Section 57 of that Act of possessing an article for terrorist purposes. A week or so ago their appeal was allowed and the Lord Chief Justice went so far as to question whether they should have been prosecuted in the first place. Incidentally, I assume that those five are not included in the 58. The House will certainly want to know, before we debate the Counter-Terrorism Bill, the breakdown of those convictions and, as far as can be given, the breakdown of the 30 plots. Without that information, I do not see how the House can seriously address the question of an extension of detention beyond 28 days.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who has enormous expertise in this area. I can confirm that the five are not included in the 58. I am sure that a breakdown of convictions will be available as noble Lords begin to discuss the legislation. For lots of reasons, I do not think that we will be able to give a breakdown of the plots per se, because it is very difficult to see how one could do that without revealing information. However, I have noted the point and I will take it away.

Baroness Ludford: My Lords, the Statement made several welcome references to strengthening international institutions. I have not had a chance to read the whole document but I think that the Statement, unfortunately and regretfully, made no mention of the rule of law. Respect for international law has been one of the great casualties of the past seven years, including UN instruments such as the torture convention and the refugee convention. Unfortunately, we have had torture, disappearance and rendition. Recently, President Bush vetoed a Bill outlawing torture, and there have been allegations, not least from the European Parliament, of European Governments colluding in extraordinary rendition. We had a recent admission from the Foreign Secretary of an overlooked rendition through Diego Garcia.
	Can the noble Baroness reassure me that the Government now see upholding the international rule of law as vital to national and international security? Will the Government make every effort to prevail on the President of the United States and other Governments that the exercise of rule of law is essential to our security?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, is it not a question of the Government now; the Government always have done so. If the noble Baroness turns to chapter 2, Guiding principles, 2:1 says:
	"Our approach to national security is clearly grounded in a set of core values. They include human rights, the rule of law".
	If the noble Baroness reads the section when she has a chance there will be nothing in it with which she will disagree.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the civilian standby capacity. Does she agree that apart from involving NATO and the European Union there must be an increase in linguistic capacity? How is that to be achieved? What priorities are to be set with regard to it?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the 1,000-strong group that we have described within the document are people who have particular expertise. We talked about police officers, the judiciary and so on. Linguistic capacity will be a part of that and that is why we will need to think about who will be relevant and necessary for a particular set of circumstances. But we have a long history of working closely with nations across the world where the provision of expertise from Britain has been highly relevant to trying to help states recover or not to fall into moments of turmoil.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that while she is right to heed some of the warnings of my noble friend Lady Park on the matter, there is nonetheless a strong case for strengthening the role of the ISC. When I was chairman I envisaged that it might be possible to hold occasional public hearings, not discussing secret matters of course. I particularly welcome the statement that the staff of the ISC is to be reinforced to give it an effective investigative arm which we used to have and was unfortunately lost and not replaced, which was a great mistake.
	The Statement is full of immediate matters and long-term matters. It recognises at last the serious problem of retention, particularly in the Army at the present time. Sadly, it is not a question of spending more money. Now the Government have to address the issue. The noble Baroness's friendly talks with the Chief of the Defence staff in her room are not a substitute for recognising the real problems. The real problem is in terms of resources and experienced people. They are willing to do one tour; they are willing to do two tours, bravely discharging their duties in a magnificent way; but when it comes to a third tour and the impact on the family, the Government face a challenge that money is not necessarily going to put right.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said about the ISC. Perhaps I need to ask him to talk to his noble friend. It fits well with what my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett, the new chairman of the committee, was saying this morning. I cannot hear what the noble Lord is saying to me—I am sure I was not meant to hear it.
	I take the noble Lord's point about the Armed Forces. I did not mean to suggest that friendly talks in my room were anything other than an opportunity that I was willing and wished to give for those people with great concerns to be able to meet the Secretary of State for Defence. I am glad that it was friendly, but when I left the room I had no idea whether it would be.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, a purely national security strategy is probably relevant only to emergencies such as floods when more and more we need to co-ordinate our strategy with friendly alliances. Can my noble friend say to what extent the priorities in the document have been aligned with those of the European Union for their own security strategy and other international organisations?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in terms of the relationships that we have described in the Statement, there is the bilateral relationship with the United States and our relationship with NATO. We talk about the role of international institutions whether that is the World Bank, the UN and so on and indeed our role with our partners as part of the European Union. All of those relationships are important. On Monday I reported back on the spring Council on behalf of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. It is clear, as noble Lords will know, that climate change and other issues are firmly on the agenda. That is led in large part by the UK in order to have that sense of a co-ordinated approach that we are going to need if we are to tackle some of these global issues.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that one of the crucial elements in preventing terrorism is taking action with regard to nuclear and other dangerous materials. In that context, will she look at the decision to send from Sellafield cargoes of plutonium dioxide, which is a very dangerous material, to France for reprocessing? Will the Government decide whether it is a completely safe method? Does the noble Baroness further agree that, in order to protect this country, it is absolutely essential that we play, as we are beginning to do, a major part in the creation of international architecture that will enable us closely to control nuclear materials and, in particular, materials that could lead to the construction of nuclear weapons; for example, through strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and strengthening the decisions to move away from short warning times for nuclear weapons?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I agree entirely with her on the important role that we must play in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We, too, are anxious about materials moving around. On Sellafield, my noble friend is conducting a review of a number of issues, of which this will form part.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, some very interesting facts have emerged this week about how the Government moved towards the resolution of the problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Do they intend to learn the lessons of that experience in dealing with the problems of terrorism now?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Of course, my Lords, though there are huge differences, as I indicated in the Statement, between what was a real problem in terms of terrorism from the IRA and the situation that we face now. However, all the lessons from the ongoing conflicts in which the UK has been involved in any way need to be learnt. As the noble Baroness said, it is important to make sure that those lessons play a part in how we put together the strategy.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, we are hugely grateful for the inclusion in the Statement of issues of shared values and the gathering together of the faith communities in this task. I am sure the noble Baroness would accept that, in the absence of confidence among the people and a sense of communality in our life together, no amount of technical arrangements for security will succeed. Does she also accept that the more one marginalises the leadership of key communities, the more one encourages unhealthy voices to arise within them, and the more we can engage in continued conversation and partnership, the more we make that more difficult? Does she further accept that it is important that DfID recognises the need to build up civil society in those weak states overseas in which we work if we are to provide a structure that preserves the values that hold our common life together?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am tempted to say yes, yes and yes, but the right reverend Prelate deserves a little bit more than that. I could not agree more that it is essential that underpinning all of this—I can take no credit for it being in the Statement, though the right reverend Prelate gave me some—is the work that we do with our own communities, developing those relationships and dealing with the issues. As the right reverend Prelate will see in the document, global issues such as poverty have their part to play in destabilising societies. We should foster those voices, as the right reverend Prelate described them. I agree that it is important for the faith communities to play their part together. I pay tribute to the work that the church and other faiths have already done. It is important that we do not marginalise. DfID has played an important and valuable role in understanding that and working with other Governments, especially in developing the strategy that we take forward in other countries.

Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

Report received.
	Clause 1 [LBRO]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out "Local Better" and insert "Better Local"

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the name proposed for the new quango to be established by the Bill is misleading to the point of falsehood. The name proposed in my Amendment No. 1 is the minimum required in the interests of truth.
	This office should not really be called the Local Better Regulation Office; it should be called the National Office for Regulating Local Government Regulators—or something of that sort. That is its purpose and what it is going to do. The body is not local but national. As a test of that, imagine oneself sitting in an office somewhere, picking up the telephone and somebody on the other end saying, "I am from the Local Better Regulation Office". Would you suppose that he or she came from a local or national office? You would assume at once that they came from something local. That proves the point I am trying to make.
	The formulation in the amendment was suggested in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is the minimum rather than the ultimately desirable and I put it forward on that basis. I do not consider myself a pedant, although I realise that no pedant ever does. I am a disciple of Lynne Truss and was a disciple of Sir Ernest Gower, who wrote an excellent book on plain words. The Civil Service guide to clear English was written in about 1948 but lasted a long time in Civil Service circles; I do not whether it is still used.
	The name should be made clearer. Perhaps the body should be called the "Temporary National Regulator". I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jones, is not with us. He described it as a temporary body and said that it would all be wound up before long. No doubt we shall hear about that on a later amendment. This is not a quango but a tango. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, has looked in occasionally, a bit like the Cheshire Cat. He comes and grins at us from time to time, then fades away again, leaving somebody else to move the amendments in his name.
	It is important that we describe things correctly. The Bill does not do so. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, was kind enough to remind me in correspondence that all we are doing here is putting on a statutory basis something that is already done voluntarily to a considerable extent. Yet there is a world of difference between something done voluntarily and something done statutorily, particularly for the local authorities whose powers are in effect being taken away or certainly impinged on. At present, both the primary authority and the local authorities involved must agree. In future, that will all be laid down. Later amendments, notably my Amendment No. 39, attempt to remedy this. The difference is that, when a dispute arises, ultimately the matter, if it is statutory, can come to the courts to decide in a way that it could not if it was voluntary. There could be appeals all the way up to what we should call the Middlesex Guildhall by the time this gets going. Putting this on a statutory basis is one thing; we can discuss that in later amendments. Yet the body is really a national office and we should recognise that at a minimum by accepting Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this was indeed an idea that came to me during the debate in Committee. What can I say? I am a pedant.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has made a good case for his amendment. It is certainly a much better case than that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, on behalf of the Opposition, when she wanted to change the word "Regulation" to "Deregulation". That seemed to me nonsense. We all know that regulation is necessary, whether we are talking about food safety, health and safety of workers, consumer protection or whatever. What is needed is better regulation—or better administered regulation—which is fairly and adequately enforced.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, makes a good case for altering the name. What are we about? We are about better regulation and he wants to say "Better Local Regulation Office" instead of "Local Better Regulation Office". Of course, he is quite right that it is a national body and the existing name could confuse people in the way that he described.
	The only qualification that I have is that we are where we are. The name "Local Better Regulation Office" has been with us for some time; the noble Lord admitted that it was there as a corporate body before it was suggested that it become a statutory body. The name is familiar—the LBRO has advertised posts under that name—so what is the case for changing it now? I very much doubt that that case has been made, as distinct from the case that could have been made if we were starting from scratch.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Cope on both amendments. As he has extensively argued, the appellation "Local Better Regulation Office" is an obvious misnomer, as the office is an attempt at central, national co-ordination. What is currently regulated by local authorities will come under the jurisdiction of this new national body. Names of bodies should indicate the functions of those bodies and, while the Minister might pick at our argument for being pedantic or irrelevant, I would argue that it is important to have clarity of intention from the start. Misinterpretation can lead to mistakes and the regulatory system cannot afford to suffer mistakes—nor should it.
	We are rather spoilt on this Bill and in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform by having the noble Lord, Lord Jones, as our Minister of State as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, as our Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, with the whole thing backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who is one of the most experienced members of the Government's Front-Bench team. We are being spoilt rotten—and I am only too delighted to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, to the Bill, which she has now taken over and on which, I presume, she will be with us to the end.

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for tabling Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I take this opportunity also to thank noble Lords for the time and attention that they have accorded to this important Bill. We have listened and we have considered carefully all the amendments proposed. We have made numerous concessions which we believe will improve the Bill, please noble Lords and enable us to complete our consideration of the Bill today. However, the first amendment is not one that we can accept.
	I shall explain to the House why we chose the name "Local Better Regulation Office". We completely accept that the office is not a local one but a national body. However, the phrase "Better Regulation", which appears in the middle of the LBRO's name, refers to a well recognised concept in policy making. The Better Regulation Executive, which leads across government on regulatory reform, is a part of my own department; indeed, I am the Minister for Better Regulation. The LBRO is about better regulation at a local level, which is local better regulation. I would not dream of suggesting that anyone is being pedantic, but we could have quite a long debate on semantics. The key issue is that the LBRO will promote better regulation locally. That could be phrased as local better regulation or better local regulation, but the former name maintains the better regulation brand and is therefore, I believe, the correct sequence of words in this case.
	As my noble friend Lord Borrie suggests, the LBRO has been in existence since last year. It already has brand recognition. It has written to every local authority in England and Wales. It has a draft strategy that has been consulted on in its name. Changing its name now without good reason would lose the value of that brand recognition and require the office to spend time rebuilding its reputation. In addition, there would be administrative and legal costs associated with any change of name, which we estimate would be about £35,000. These would include the cost of rebranding stationery, user guides and websites, as well as legal fees on, for example, company documentation, pensions, payrolls et cetera. I understand that £35,000 may not seem much but, coming from the Treasury, I should point out that it is the annual salary of an average teacher or policeman. I understand the point that the noble Lord makes but I hope that in the light of what I have said he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, that was an interesting short debate. I am grateful for the support for my proposal not only from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, from whom I got the idea in the first place and whose support was therefore to be expected, but also from the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. However, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, also argued, as did the Minister for Better Regulation, that it would be a mistake to alter the name now. I am mildly shocked by that suggestion. What is being said is that, because the Executive decided something a few months ago off their own bat, Parliament is going to be ignored and whatever we say should not be taken seriously. What is being said is, "We have already decided that. It was all settled. We cleared that up in government". If we accept that sort of argument in Parliament, we will, if we are not careful, waste our time discussing legislation at all. There is a considerable danger in that. I am not sure what the Government are doing in presuming to lay all these things down and then saying, "Sorry, we have decided that already. Forget it. Do not bother even discussing it".
	The Minister herself accepted that this body is not a local body, which is what its title suggests. She also advanced the idea that the cost of changing the name was too great. Frankly, coming from this Government, that is rather amusing. This Government have changed the names of departments of state more frequently than any Government I have known. They have mucked about with the titles of Ministers, sometimes very frequently, reshuffled departments, rewritten everything and moved departments about, sometimes in large ways and at enormous expense. Yet they say that they cannot possibly afford a little money to change this name, which they decided—wrongly in my opinion—a few months ago.
	I am not happy with the answers that have been given to me and I urge the Government to think again. This Bill started in your Lordships' House. It has not yet been to another place, so there is plenty of time for the Government to think again when it is passed down the Corridor. As a matter of fact, they have taken a lot of time between Committee and Report. The Bill has not been overpressed through this House. I make no complaint about that, but the Government have time to rethink this matter, as I think they should, for the reasons that I have advanced. I have made the case and I have been supported around the House, at least on the basis of the case. I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
	"(4) LBRO shall cease to exist on 1st January 2014 unless the Secretary of State provides an order under section 73(3) of this Act."

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I once again bring for us to debate a sunset clause to ensure that the provisions of the Bill cannot continue past 1 January 2014 without parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister may have been a little too quick to dismiss my initial—

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for giving way so early in her remarks. I intervene with a view to assisting the House on this matter. It may help the House to know that, when I respond, I will propose making a statutory provision for a review of the LBRO's effectiveness in three years—two years before the proposed date in the sunset clause. This provision would be similar to that in Part 3 of the Bill. We believe that it would be a more tailored approach, which would achieve the aims intended by the noble Baroness and noble Lords but without the uncertainties and unintended consequences that the sunset clause would bring.

Baroness Wilcox: Well, my Lords, I have a wonderful speech here. It took my researcher Violet and me ages to write. Where did I stop? I said that once again I bring for us to debate a sunset clause to ensure that the provisions of the Bill cannot continue past 1 January 2014 without parliamentary scrutiny. If I heard the Minister correctly, she will propose an undertaking to review the Local Better Regulation Office in three years. If that is what I heard—I would like to think that that was what I heard, and she is not interrupting me again to tell me that I am wrong—I do not need to continue with this speech.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I would prefer to say that that would be a welcome and reassuring measure. I look forward to what she will say. It is not for us to prevent the Government from getting their business through; it is our job to improve the Bill where we can. If that is what we are about to do, that would be very helpful. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the amendment should refer to Section 74(3), not Section 73(3).

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I entirely endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, to the Front Bench. I am slightly disappointed, because I was about to place a bet of £10 for every time a Tory Peer stood up and made a slightly childish comment about the actions of the noble Lord, Lord Jones. At the rate they were going, I would probably have had £1,000 by Easter. However, I endorse the noble Baroness's remarks and welcome the Government's concession. As the Minister will be aware, sunset clauses are a topic dear to the heart of our party and this is a satisfactory compromise, which I welcome on behalf of these Benches.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I just make the point that Clause 17 already provides for the possibility of a government order to be made to dissolve the Local Better Regulation Office when its purpose has been achieved. That is surely much better than an arbitrary date as chosen by this amendment. We also have my noble friend's point about the review, so that, well before the date chosen by the Opposition for a complete but arbitrary cut-off point, there will be a review. No doubt there would have been one anyway because of the power in Clause 17 to dissolve the office at some future date.

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, the House already knows what the Government intend to do and I do not believe that I should detain noble Lords any longer on this issue. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I am grateful for what she said and for the gracious way in which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, came forward and spoke. He always says nasty things about us. I do not know why he goes on like that. I will give him £10 if he wants £10: he does not have to gamble on how many times we mention the noble Lord, Lord Jones. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that politics is a messy old business. "Perhaps" is not good enough for us, so I am much happier to have the Minister's reassurance today. I am now happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 1 [LBRO: supplementary]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Schedule 1, page 36, line 32, at beginning insert "half"

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, raised an important point in Committee about the provisions in the Bill for board membership. As he said, the Bill allows the chair to appoint ex officio members—in other words, employees of the LBRO—to the board. Currently, the number of ex officio members may not exceed the number of ordinary members. This may allow the chairman to form an effective majority over the ordinary members of the board simply by appointing the maximum number of employees as ex officio members. While we think this is unlikely in practice, it is clearly unacceptable if we wish to make the right provision for the good governance of the new body.
	We agreed in Committee to consider restricting further the number of ex officio members. Having considered the matter, we believe that the approach suggested by the noble Lord in Committee—in other words, that the number of ex officio members should be limited to half the number of full board members—is the right one and we are grateful to him for raising the issue. The effect is that employees may only ever form one-third of the committee, removing the risk that they might make up an effective majority.
	I know that there is an amendment in the name of the noble Lord. I have had the good fortune to discuss this matter with him prior to today. I hope that he will not move his amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I briefly thank the Minister for his kind comments and, indeed, for his amendment. When we discussed this in Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested the idea of half less one. I tabled an amendment to this effect but when I played around with the practical implications for the structure of the board, it was clear that the original idea was better. Therefore, I shall not move my amendment and I am grateful to the Minister for adopting the proposal.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Schedule 1, page 37, line 6, leave out "five" and insert "three"

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, this takes us back over some territory we discussed in Grand Committee. This pair of amendments has the simple objective of changing the terms of office for board members from two five-year terms to three three-year terms. My arguments in Grand Committee can be summarised as follows. First, the LBRO will deal with private sector companies, and modern corporate governance allows for three three-year terms, not two five-year terms. Since it interfaces with the LBRO, the LBRO should be on the same basis. Secondly, five-year terms are inherently undesirable. A chairman or board member can do a great deal of damage in five years. Thirdly, my noble friend Lord Cope made the helpful suggestion that three-year terms made the board succession question—which he described as the balance between continuity and turnover—easier.
	The argument against, which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was prominent in advancing, was that this is a public sector and part-time body, and it takes five years to get to know the ropes. It is a public sector body, but a very specialised one. It is established as a body corporate. It is registered with the Registrar of Companies for England and Wales. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 suggests that it is not to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown. However, it is wrong to say that it takes five years to get to know the ropes. All non-executive directors are part-time. In large private sector companies, three years is considered the right length of time and as striking the right balance between continuity and becoming complacent. The suggestion, also made in Grand Committee, that three-year reappointments unduly increase Ministers' influence was unworthy, because if the members of the LBRO are so weak as to fall prey to this, a five-year term of office will make no difference.
	The Minister suggested that he wished to use the precedent of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. I really do not think that SOCA, as a law enforcement agency, is comparable to this issue. He finally pointed out that five years was, in any case, the maximum period and that it was possible to remove a chairman or board member in less than five years. But we all know that the reality is that, once people are appointed, it involves very great agony and effort to turf someone out before the end of their maximum turn. The LBRO interfaces with private sector companies, which are set up on a "three-by-three", not a "five-by-two", basis. The LBRO should be the same. That would be better for it and will make it more effective and responsive to changes in the marketplace. I hope that the Minister will think again. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I hope that I have never said, either in Committee or elsewhere, that it is necessary to be on a body for five years to get to know the ropes. I expressed my view that five years should be the maximum period, because it takes a year or two—especially for a part-timer—to be useful and to get to know the ropes. Then one needs a reasonable time to be useful, rather than thinking, "In a few months' time, I have to leave". That was all I was saying. I hope that I did not go as far as the extreme statement attributed to me by the noble Lord.

Lord Bach: My Lords, paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 makes provision for the tenure of board membership, and paragraph 6(2) limits board members to terms of no more than five years; paragraph 6(5) limits board members to a total period of appointment of no more than 10 years. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, returns to a theme discussed in Committee, and I am sorry that, on this occasion, I will not be able to agree with him.
	As my noble friend has just said, these are maximum periods for a term and for the total period of appointment respectively. It should be noted that within the Bill it is quite possible to appoint a board member for a term of only three years. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has already mentioned what my noble friend Lord Borrie said in Committee—that, unlike board members in the world of business and commerce, the LBRO's board will be taking on part-time posts and it will take them some time to learn the ropes. We take the same view.
	While of course there are arguments for and against limiting the terms of the LBRO's board members to three years, on balance we believe that it is preferable to include flexibility in the Bill and to allow for the possibility of a five-year term for a board member. That addresses the point made by my noble friend on the previous occasion, and now on Report. That is the Government's view and I hope that the noble Lord—although I am sure he is not persuaded—will not press his amendments.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the Minister for his courteous response to my amendments. I am not persuaded that his case is right for achieving the best governance in this organisation. All non-executive directors are part-time, and if you are to be a non-executive director of a major international company, you have to get to know and become familiar with the company in three years, and you can be reappointed. I understand the Minister's viewpoint; it is not an open-and-shut case. I accept that there are arguments on the other side that he and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, have advanced. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
	Clause 4 ["Relevant function"]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
	"(7) The Secretary of State may by order determine whether, for the purposes of subsection (3), an enactment made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (c.68) is made with respect to any of the matters specified in that subsection.
	(7A) An order under subsection (7) requires the consent of the Welsh Ministers where—
	(a) the determination affects the application of this Part in relation to local authorities in Wales, and(b) the enactment made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 relates to a Welsh ministerial matter."

Lord Bach: My Lords, I also speak to government Amendments Nos. 12 and 37. Amendments Nos. 8 and 37 are linked. Amendment No. 8 will require that any direction issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 4(7) is made by way of an order subject to the negative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 37 is consequential to this. These amendments respond to the comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee regarding Clauses 4(3) and 4(7) and our treatment of the relevant statutory instruments made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The committee has stated that it is content with the approach we have taken in Amendment No. 37. There was a good debate in Committee and I would like to explain our approach.
	The scope of Parts 1 and 2 is determined by reference to the "regulatory functions" of local authorities arising, first, under any of the Acts listed in Schedule 3 and statutory instruments made under those Acts; and secondly, under secondary legislation made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act. The use of category headings to capture the secondary legislation made under Section 2(2) of the ECA is intended to facilitate the interpretation of the scope of Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. In most cases, it will be clear whether a set of regulations falls within one of the category headings. Such regulations themselves generally include a heading such as "Animal Health" or "Consumer Protection". Where there is doubt, a power has been included to allow the Secretary of State to determine whether an instrument made under Section 2(2) falls within the scope of one of the category headings at Clause 4(7). Amendment No. 37 will make this determination subject to the negative resolution procedure. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support these amendments and hope that we have met the concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee and the Committee on the Bill.
	On Amendment No. 12, it was noted in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that while the LBRO is required to consult persons who are subject to regulation—usually businesses or their representatives—before issuing guidance, it is not explicitly required to consult local authorities. It has always been our intention that the LBRO should do so under the broader requirement to consult such persons as it considers appropriate, set out at Clause 6(4)(b). We were therefore very happy to consider the noble Baroness's amendment, which would have added a specific requirement to consult local authorities. Amendment No. 12 has this effect. It requires the LBRO to consult such local authorities—or their representatives—as it considers appropriate. This reflects the fact that guidance may only affect a subset of local authorities. For instance, guidance on trading standards would only be relevant for unitary and county councils. The LBRO needs the flexibility to conduct a more tailored consultation than an unqualified requirement to consult all local authorities would require. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I welcome these amendments. The letter on Amendment No. 8, sent to noble Lords following Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, was particularly helpful. It certainly prepared me for this amendment and persuaded me. I also welcome Amendment No. 12 and am grateful to the Government for taking up the point.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Objective relating to general functions]:

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert "and efficiently"

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, we now come to the general functions of the LBRO and are ploughing some familiar ground, but it is ground where the nature of the argument has moved on since we debated this in Grand Committee. The purpose of the amendment is to add "and efficiently" to the word "effectively" as the objective relating to the general functions of the LBRO with regard to local authorities in England and Wales in Clause 5.
	Once again, I take the Minister back to the Regulators' Compliance Code, which states:
	"This Code supports the Government's better regulation agenda and is based on the recommendations in the Hampton Report. Its purpose is to promote efficient and effective approaches to regulatory inspection and enforcement".
	It does not say only "effective"; it says "efficient and effective". When we discussed this in Committee, the Minister was quite sympathetic, saying that the amendment had,
	"given me food for thought".—[Official Report, 21/1/08; col. GC 35.]
	I therefore left the Committee stage with a spring in my step but, sadly, since then, his sympathy appears to have drained away, so I am returning to the charge this afternoon.
	The Minister may say that the quotation I have given concerns only the Regulators' Compliance Code and not the Bill. I do not entirely accept that because regulation should be all of a piece. Indeed, the purpose behind the Bill is to achieve an even, level playing field with regard to better regulation, and that is the reason behind the creation of the LBRO. Even if I were inclined to accept it, the guide to the Bill, at the top of page 11, refers to the general duties created by the Bill and lays down three duties. It goes on to say:
	"These duties closely relate to the Regulators' Compliance Code and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform ... Order ... which are currently before Parliament ... The duties created under the RES Bill"—
	the Bill we are considering this afternoon—
	"will work alongside the Regulators' Compliance Code and the five principles to ensure that the principles of better regulation are embedded in the delivery of local authority regulatory services".
	It therefore seems to me that we are absolutely ad idem on the compliance code and the legislation that we are debating today.
	The Minister was kind enough to offer us a meeting to discuss this matter in more detail, and I am extremely grateful to him and the noble Baroness. We spent an hour going through some of the trickier issues that we are discussing here this afternoon, and we had a chance to discuss more closely his loss of sympathy—the fact that his intention to give me a fair hearing had somehow disappeared—which appeared to be due to a potential clash with the duties of the Audit Commission. Adding the word "efficiently" in Clause 5(1)(a) would cause difficulties with the Audit Commission, given the wording in that subsection, which reads:
	"In exercising its functions under sections 6 to 10 LBRO has the objective of securing that local authorities in England and Wales exercise their relevant functions".
	It was the duty of the Audit Commission to judge efficiency and therefore, according to the Minister and the Bill team, it was all right for the LBRO to require local authorities to be effective—there would be no clash. However, requiring it to be efficient causes a clash.
	I thought that that was slightly counterintuitive, so this morning, while preparing for this afternoon, I went to the Printed Paper Office and got out the Audit Commission's two most recent reports. The first is called Fire and Rescue Performance Assessment, and the summary at paragraph 8 on page 3 says:
	"However, all services are achieving some efficiency savings, and 31 fire services ... are meeting their efficiency targets".
	I thought that I now understood this—I could see what the Government were driving at. Clearly there would be a clash if we had efficiency. However, I then went on to paragraph 9, which states:
	"This has been achieved through better arrangements for consulting local people and more effective work at the neighbourhood level".
	So, clearly the Audit Commission is measuring effectiveness and efficiency. However, if we turn to page 3 of the second report, which is called Positively Charged: Maximising the Benefits of Local Public Service Charges, there is no mention at all of efficiency. The only reference in the summary reads:
	"Councils do not always make the most effective use of their charging powers".
	Therefore, I have some difficulty seeing why the Government now argue that "efficient" will give rise to a clash when, in the two Audit Commission reports I picked out at random, effectiveness is clearly an important part of their role.
	The reality is that the LBRO should ensure that local authorities are both effective and efficient. The Minister knows that because that was his reaction when he heard the arguments put to him in Committee. The prospect of a clash with the Audit Commission is, to be candid, a smokescreen. The Minister should trust his instincts and accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with what has been said by the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I recalled that in Committee my noble friend Lord Desai indicated that it was rather difficult to think of saying that a local authority has been effective in its job without also considering whether it had been efficient. The two seem to go together like twins and that led me to think that the proposal in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is redundant because "effective" covers the same area. However, to be on the safe side and make it clearer to local authorities, businesspeople, consumers and whoever is concerned with the provision in the Bill, it may well be a good idea to have "efficient" added to "effective".
	The noble Lord has done his homework in studying a selection of Audit Commission reports and has made some important points. I was not terribly convinced of the explanation given in Committee by my noble friend Lord Bach when in rejecting "efficient" he said that that was a matter for the Audit Commission. I fully accept that detailed assessment of local government management and its efficiency is indeed a matter for the Audit Commission, but I do not see a clash between that assessment that the Audit Commission pursues and the idea in the amendment that the LBRO should consider the effectiveness and efficiency of local authorities. Therefore, I still have sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I spoke in Grand Committee and I continue to be astonished that, in a Bill designed to reduce red tape, all that we have been doing is adding words, phrases, requirements and tasks. Therefore, whenever we cut red tape, we make sure that another nice bouquet of it is handed on to whoever has to abolish it. Why have two words when one will do? The whole principle of business is "save money, save costs and save time" and I do not think anything is gained by having two words where one will do.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has just made about reducing or adding to the burden provoked a smile from the Government Front Bench. It is a view that I share, but the Minister may be about to tell us why we are both wrong.
	I tabled an amendment in Committee that referred to what I think the noble Lord, Lord Bach, called the mantra of "efficiency, effectiveness and economy"—with which the Audit Commission is concerned. I tabled that amendment because I wanted to understand how the work of the LBRO interfaced with that of the Audit Commission. I was then persuaded to withdraw it. It seems to me that to add one extra limb in this clause would be inappropriate. I can see that the LBRO's business is to support and to encourage effectiveness among local authorities, which is entirely within its remit. Efficiency on the part of local authorities is not its business. I would be unhappy if the provision were extended in this way.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts in his Amendment No. 9. It seems to me to be a sensible idea to ensure that the LBRO is tied to good practice through the Government's own regulator's compliance code. It makes a qualitative requirement that the LBRO fulfils its duties with adequate success. In these debates on regulation, we need to ensure that the LBRO is a body fulfilling a purpose. When the regulatory system is so hideously complex, the last thing we need is another body that will further complicate the system, let alone an extra word. We need to find solutions and clarity and unless we stipulate that, I believe we are in danger of missing an opportunity here.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for raising this issue. In our view, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had it absolutely right. She speaks with a lot of experience of local government—some of us have some experience of local government but not to the extent that she has. The point she makes is right. Efficiency is very much about the internal workings of a local authority. I will not say that it has a specific meaning, but it has a pretty clear meaning in local authority terms. Efficiency is about the internal workings of local authority regulatory services. The LBRO is looking at the external manifestation of regulation: the effects or effectiveness of regulation.
	The efficiency of local government is a matter that is looked at by the Audit Commission. We are not afraid of clashes with the Audit Commission—the noble Lord is wrong about that—but he is aware of our belief that the Audit Commission already performs the role of seeing that a local authority is performing efficiently and it has performed that role perfectly well. It would be ironic to have two public bodies performing the same function in the name of efficiency and, in the process, to put local authorities under a duty to account to both at the same time. To have to account to the Audit Commission is a responsibility on each and every local authority. We are just confusing issues if we say that there should also be an obligation under this Bill to the LBRO.
	The word "effective" in the LBRO's objective seeks to capture maintaining what can only be described as regulatory outcomes, which sounds rather clichéd; for example, consumer protection, which is key to the policy behind the LBRO. We do not think that the use of the word "effective" in the context of the Audit Commission has the same meaning. For that reason, we see no clash with regard to the term "effective" from the quotes given to us by the noble Lord when moving his amendment. It is not because it adds an extra word to the Bill—although in general terms my noble friend Lord Desai is right that we will add the words "in writing" later this afternoon—but because there is a confusing of roles. Efficiency is a matter for the Audit Commission and effectiveness is very much a matter for the LBRO. I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am very disappointed with the Minister's response, as he will understand. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his qualified support for what we are trying to achieve. I understand what the Minister is driving at, but I do not think that that meets the point, which is that the Audit Commission reports comment on effectiveness as well as efficiency. So if you wish to avoid having the same ground climbed twice, you should strike out "effective" as well as "efficient".
	Secondly, if this is the case, the regulator's code also needs amending because that refers to both categories as being part of a regulatory function. It is all to do with the internal workings of the regulator. That is not the purpose behind the Regulators'Compliance Code. That code was about the enforcement of regulation. It does not refer to whether a regulator is internally efficient, which is the construction that the Minister is trying to put on my amendment. From my perspective, "effective" means fulfilling its functions and "efficient" means that it is doing it in a way that is the minimum burden to the person who is being regulated. That is to say, is it sending four or five individuals to check where one would do; and are various other aspects of the operation not being fulfilled in an efficient way and a way that is likely in the longer term to place a burden on the regulated business, bearing in mind that what we have here can be charged to the regulated company or the regulated entity? I am unsatisfied and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 172.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Clause 5, page 3, line 34, at end insert", and
	(d) in a way which allows or encourages economic progress."

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, spurred on by that enormous success, I return to Clause 5 and the objective relating to general functions. I can be briefer on this occasion than I was on the previous amendment. I again wish to add an additional objective. The amendment requires the LBRO to have regard to the work of local authorities,
	"in a way which allows or encourages economic progress".
	According to page 6 of the guidance, the Bill implements the Hampton agenda, which includes a principle that regulation should recognise that a key element of activity will be to allow, or even encourage, economic progress and to intervene only where there is a clear case for protection. Somewhere in this better regulation Bill we need to recognise the importance of entrepreneurial and economic activity to the future of this country. It is too easily overlooked.
	In Grand Committee, the Minister chided me:
	"I am afraid we do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to include provision in the Bill requiring the LBRO to ensure that local authorities carry out their functions in a way that allows or encourages economic progress ... it is hard to believe that a local authority would do the opposite".—[Official Report, 21/1/08; col. GC 42.]
	I wish I always had his confidence. In deference to him, I shall leave aside the wilder shores that his party reached in the 1970s, which brought this country to its knees, but there is a much more prevalent, softer and insidious possibility because local authorities can be very risk-averse. The benefits from economic success, entrepreneurial activity and dynamism accrue to those involved, but when there is a failure, the fallout can rebound on the local authority. The local press can ask, "Who allowed it? How was it permitted? Should someone not have stopped it? What was the local authority doing?". We need to make sure that we have a better way of dealing with this, and I think that if we fail to mention in the Bill the fact that economic progress is the wellspring or activity that will enable us to do many of the things that we, whatever our political persuasion, think are desirable for this country, we are failing the better regulation agenda, and we are failing what Hampton set out as his principles. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have a problem with this amendment too. Local authorities have powers in regard to the three limbs of sustainable development—economic, environmental and social—and to extract one and put it in the Bill would distort the picture. I have written a note to myself that this goes too far. The remit of the LBRO is quite specific and clear, and this is outside the way in which the Government have designed it. It also goes too far for local authorities.
	That is not to say that economic progress should not be encouraged but it would distort the responsibilities of local authorities to have this provision in the Bill, both by specifically separating it from the other roles and duties which are spelt out, and from the constraints and criteria on how they exercise their regulatory functions. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord again.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am also sorry that I am going to disappoint the noble Lord again. As was said in Committee, the phrase the noble Lord seeks to get into the Bill is echoed in the regulator's compliance code, which comes into force in April this year. The code states:
	"Good regulation and its enforcement act as an enabler to economic activity",
	and should,
	"allow or encourage economic progress".
	However, the code also includes a number of other obligations based on the Hampton principles to which local authorities must have regard. These are: carrying out comprehensive and effective risk assessments; improving compliance through support and advice; not inspecting without a reason; balancing the need for information with the burdens presented by information requests; targeting those who deliberately or persistently breach the law; and establishing structures to ensure accountability and transparency. It is essential for local authorities to have regard to all these obligations and it would be odd and invidious to include only one in the LBRO's objective, thereby giving that one undue weight over the others.
	I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is keen to ensure that we acknowledge in the Bill the importance of economic activity to the prosperity of this country. The Bill recognises the importance of economic activity and it is designed to ensure that the UK regulatory environment is world class. Where a local authority exercises its relevant functions effectively and in a way that does not give rise to unnecessary burdens, is transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed, economic progress will follow.
	I accept that we may not have made it as clear as possible how the work of the LBRO will relate to the code and that this will have to be addressed. If the noble Lord has done nothing else, he has made that point. The most appropriate place to do this is in the guide that accompanies the Bill. I do not agree with him that this should be included in the Bill and I invite him to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, the importance of economic activity and success is hard to overestimate. I accept entirely the Minister's point about other matters referred to in the Hampton report. The economic prosperity of this country is so critical that its position vis-à-vis our regulatory framework is central, in a way that some of the other headings that he referred to, while important, are not. Having said that, if the Government are clearly not minded to accept that point of view, I do not propose to ask the House to troop through the Lobbies, as I did a few minutes ago. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Clause 5, page 3, line 38, leave out "only"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the amendment seeks to take out the word "only" from the provision that,
	"regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed".
	We debated the clause in Committee, where I was concerned to understand the difference between acting proportionately, which is required in the same clause, and targeting. During that debate the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he thought that "only" was incorrect, and that it,
	"seems not to provide the kind of protection for consumers and others that",—[Official Report, 21/1/08; col. GC 39.]
	had been spelt out previously. I think that he was right. Rereading the clause, it seemed that targeting "only", if it is not tautologous, is very close to being tautologous and it is too tight. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked the Minister to have another look at the risk-based approach to regulation and suggested that the matter could be expressed "slightly more subtly". This is not a very subtle amendment but, nevertheless, I hope that it may give the Government an opportunity to argue the case again. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we spent some time in Committee discussing the principles of good regulation, which feature prominently in the LBRO's objective. Local authorities are already required to have regard to the principles of good regulation, under the provisions in the legislative and regulatory reform order. That order applies the principles as listed in Section 21 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. The fifth of the principles, which we are talking about here, states that,
	"regulatory activity should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed".
	Clause 5(2)(a) follows that wording precisely. The word "only" is what the noble Baroness complains of.
	A change in wording here would send somewhat contradictory messages to the LBRO and to local authorities, and would clearly be undesirable. However, I acknowledge that concerns were raised in Committee that "only", which here is attached to the fifth principle of targeting, could cast a cloud over some important work performed by local authorities.
	The clause specifies that regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases where "action is needed". That does not mean that local authorities may only act where there is a specific problem. It means that they should target their activities where they are needed more generally. There is no doubt that local authorities will need to do some investigative work to determine if there is a specific problem in the first place. I give an example: a fire authority may want to do random inspections of high-risk premises in its area or a food authority may need to take random samples of food to test for contamination. Clearly those are both cases where action is needed. Local authorities could not do their work in protecting the public adequately without that action. It would not, therefore, be excluded by the principle. However, the principle of targeting suggests that purely routine inspections, with no such meaningful rationale, should not go ahead, and that is obviously right.
	Consistency with the existing legislation is critical, but I acknowledge the concerns expressed on this point. Reluctantly, we disagree with the noble Baroness. "Only" should remain in the clause.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Government seem to be hung up on the fact that they have used this phrase in previous legislation. The Minister's argument seemed apart from that to support not only everything that I said—I said it quite quickly—but everything that I thought. I have not looked at the 2006 Act in this context, but if the phrase is wrong here, it would not be right to compound what is perhaps not quite right in that Act. I shall withdraw the amendment, but urge the Government to take another look at the matter. I understand the need to be consistent with previous legislation, because there can be confusion if exactly the same point is dealt with in different ways in different Acts of Parliament. I have made that point on a number of occasions over the years. However, the phrase is not right here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 [Guidance to local authorities]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Clause 6, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
	"(aa) such local authorities in England and Wales, or such persons representative of local authorities in England and Wales, as LBRO considers appropriate, and"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Guidance to local authorities: enforcement]:

Viscount Eccles: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Clause 7, page 4, line 18, leave out "LBRO" and insert "The Secretary of State"

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, before moving the amendments, I acknowledge the great assistance that I have had, both in letters from the Minister and from the Bill team, which directed me to one of the longest links that I have ever tried to tap into my laptop. In the end, I obtained the information for which I was looking. I am truly grateful for that and the other comments that have been transmitted to me in the dialogue on who should have the power to direct.
	Amendments Nos. 13 to 18 and 20 to 23 would simply move the power to direct local authorities from the LBRO to the Secretary of State. In Committee, the Minister said:
	"The power to direct is intended as a backstop power that might be used where, for example, one or more local authorities persistently acts with disregard for a particular piece of guidance and that disregard is, frankly, detrimental to business or the public or, as could often happen, both".—[Official Report, 23/1/08; col. GC 111.]
	That is a pretty stern test. This important statement was and remains welcome as a description of the need for the backstop power. In what follows, I am using—I hope, without plagiarism—persistent disregard as the way of looking at the situation.
	The Minister also said on a more personal note that I was a sturdy champion of local government, a charge which I fully accept. However, my concern on this occasion is centred on the relationship between Ministers and Parliament. As the Delegated Powers Committee reported, directions can have a legislative effect. It is one thing when they are used for administrative matters, but another when, as in this case, they change the legal position of the person directed. I believe that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House would agree.
	Therefore, Parliament needs to be very careful as to whom it gives the power of direction. In this case, when the Minister's test of persistent disregard comes to be considered, it will most probably be when a local authority has either failed to follow Clause 6(3), under which it must have regard to guidance, or, as is much more likely, when it has regard but remains convinced that the guidance is faulty and so should not apply. It is after all human to err. The LBRO will be no exception. It is also likely that if and when a local authority persists in disagreement, there will have been a long and diligent dialogue. The Secretary of State is the best person to resolve the matter. He should retain the backstop power of direction and Parliament should expect him to do so.
	There are several other good reasons for this conclusion. Non-departmental public bodies do not now have powers of direction, nor should they. An analogy with the Food Standards Agency has been suggested and I am grateful for a full briefing from it. There is one power of direction which enables the agency to bring a food authority into line, subject to an order in the High Court. This power has never been used. It is certainly not a precedent for the interrelated purposes of Clauses 6 and 7.
	Further, the giving of the power to the LBRO would make it in all essentials judge and jury, not only in its own approach to persistent disregard but also on behalf of regulators, thus widening the power in a completely unprecedented way. Then there is the obvious point that an unelected public body can enforce compliance on an elected local authority. Finally, the LBRO will face a steep learning curve. It is to be a temporary body. To whom might its powers of direction be transferred when it is dissolved? For all these reasons, the LBRO is the wrong choice.
	In Committee, there was an extensive discussion of consultation on the powers to be given to the LBRO, summed up by the Minister with a carefully phrased sentence:
	"Consultation produced an overwhelming view from business that the LBRO would need significant powers of compulsion beyond those of merely issuing guidance".—[Official Report, 23/1/08; col. GC 112.]
	I hope the Minister will forgive me emphasising "from business". It is possible to see the picture quite differently. There was no consultation on the power to make directions because there was no Clause 7 in the draft Bill. The parliamentary procedure of direction was not mentioned; instead, questions were asked.
	Proposal 5 of the Government's response to the consultation was that:
	"Local authorities be placed under a statutory duty 'to have regard to' guidance issued by LBRO".
	The questions asked were:
	"Do you agree with this approach?";
	and,
	"Should a stronger requirement be placed on local authorities to comply with LBRO guidance? If so, what is your argument?".
	Some 79 per cent of the respondents answered that there was no need for a stronger requirement, while 21 per cent answered yes. Among the yeses was the National Consumer Council, which answered to the second question:
	"However if outcomes suffer because guidance is being consistently ignored then LBRO should have appropriate reserve powers to deal with this".
	The Trading Standards Institute—incidentally, these two bodies were discussed in Committee—answered the same question by saying:
	"If LBRO determines that there is a limited take up of guidance and yet clear benefits from adherence then LBRO should be able to be instructive to authorities on implementation of any such guidance".
	It is clear that Ministers have allowed the 21 per cent—mainly business respondents—to prevail. By including Clause 7 they have gone further than anyone consulted could have expected. One can question the purpose of consultation if its results are not then accepted but, being where we are, we need to make the best of it. It is also now said that, having seen the clause, both the National Consumer Council and the Trading Standards Institute are content with it. Yet do they fully understand the constitutional issue involved? What about the 79 per cent?
	Defending the late entrance of Clause 7, it is argued that the Secretary of State is an adequate safeguard because he has to be consulted before a direction can be made. Why have a safeguard when you do not need it? It is much better to put the responsibility where it truly lies, with the Secretary of State. This is not only normal practice but also improves accountability to Parliament, particularly if the Secretary of State was to lay an order rather than proceeding straight to a direction. All the detriments associated with the LBRO having the power are removed. Its relationships in pursuit of its core aim—
	"to support local authorities to regulate more effectively"—
	would be that much easier to manage productively.
	In summary, Clause 7 would remain in place if my amendments were accepted. The Secretary of State would have the power to direct when he was satisfied that there was persistent disregard of sound guidance. The Government thus retain all the substance they want. There is only a change in the form. We can all hope with some confidence that the power would never in fact turn out to be necessary. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support what the noble Viscount has said, his reasons for saying it and the way that he put it. When I first read the Bill, Clause 7 was perhaps the clause that startled me most. It is headed "Guidance to local authorities: enforcement", which seems relatively innocent. Yet in the first line one comes to the power of direction. This is an important constitutional point. I do not want to take up the time of the House by repeating what the noble Viscount has said. By not repeating it, I hope it is not thought that I do not entirely go along with him. We support him fully from these Benches.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I oppose the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. We know—he showed us—that Clause 6 gives the LBRO power to issue guidance to local authorities on their so-called relevant functions. In the main, no doubt, that guidance will be accepted and followed by local authorities. As the noble Viscount pointed out, Clause 6(3) says that local authorities "must have regard" to the guidance.
	From time to time there is bound to be a recalcitrant local authority and the question is how the guidance can be enforced. Should it be by the LBRO itself or by a relevant Minister? The Government's answer in the Bill as it stands is the right one. The LBRO needs some sort of backup power for the recalcitrant local authority which, let us say, persistently ignores or declines to follow the guidance that the LBRO has given. Without that, there is a risk of the LBRO being impotent. The amendment asks for ministerial involvement but, as the noble Viscount fairly pointed out, Clause 7(2) requires the LBRO to have the consent of the Secretary of State. So there is a ministerial dimension and the potential for parliamentary accountability connected in that way in the Bill already. The Minister can always be asked, in this House or in the other place, why consent was given—and the Minister will have to respond.
	We have here the independence of the LBRO and its power to issue guidance and enforce it directly, but we also have ministerial accountability, which is the key constitutional point with which the noble Viscount has been concerned. The Bill as it stands achieves the right amount of LBRO independence and ministerial accountability for what is done.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said about not having something that is impotent, I wonder what effective enforcement the LBRO can achieve. Is it financial against a local authority? In what other way can the LBRO ensure that the recalcitrant local authority actually complies? Clearly, a Secretary of State has a financial ability. Does the LBRO have that financial ability?

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am in full support of the raft of amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Eccles. The amendments would move the powers of direction from the LBRO to the Secretary of State. Crucially, the amendments do not diminish the power that stands behind the instruction for compliance. I follow my noble friend Lord Eccles in his concern that the Bill gives the non-departmental body, the LBRO, an unprecedented power to turn guidance to local authorities subject to the "must have regard to" instruction into enforcement—and thus the instruction "must comply".
	I would also very much like to hear the Minister's justification for conferring such a great and significant power, given that the LBRO is a new body and an untested novice in its regulatory role. A regulatory body should never have the power to be both judge and jury over the regulated. I do not need to point out to your Lordships that such a situation risks losing the trust of British businesses in the regulatory system. I find it hard to believe that the Minister will not agree that optimum regulation occurs when the system is seen to work for business and the consumer, and not isolated in a separate superiority. Therefore, I would be very much more reassured if the Minister could put the reserve power of direction into the properly accountable hand of the Secretary of State.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity that the amendments give to discuss our reason for the inclusion of the measures in Clause 7. I am doubly grateful to the noble Viscount for his thanks particularly to the Bill team for the help that he says that it has given him. It is very good of him to say so because Bill teams do not often receive that kind of plaudit, although they do extraordinarily hard work—one hopes for all Members of the House.
	I acknowledge, too, that the noble Viscount has moved his position to some extent from the one he held in Committee. The amendment would no longer remove the power that the LBRO has to direct compliance with guidance; it would retain the approach adopted in Clause 7 but would put the power to give directions into the hands of the Secretary of State. I understand why the noble Viscount is testing the provisions in the clause further, but I shall try to explain to the House why we do not feel that this particular change would be helpful.
	We have already set out the thinking behind the inclusion of the LBRO's power to direct. It has its origins in the Hampton report, which recommended the creation of a public body with significant powers, along the lines of those which are already held by the Food Standards Agency, to which the noble Viscount referred. It is important that the LBRO should have a backstop power to be used when, for example, as my noble friend Lord Borrie argued, one or more local authorities persistently act with disregard for a particular piece of guidance, and this disregard is detrimental to business or the public.
	The use of the power will be subject to important controls. The most important of these is that any use of the powers of direction is subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. One question that has been raised has been the one of precedents for the Clause 7 power. As we discussed in Committee, the Hampton report recommended the creation of a body with powers broadly comparable to the Food Standards Agency. We believe that it is relevant, despite what the noble Viscount has said, that the closest precedent is the power exercised by the Food Standards Agency under the Food Safety Act 1990 in Section 40, where the agency may give directions to a local authority to take steps to comply with a code of practice, much as the LBRO may require that a local authority complies with guidance. The FSA only has to consult the Secretary of State, however—that Act does not contain the stricter requirement of consent from the Secretary of State that Clause 7 sets out.
	Not only does this power have a clear precedent therefore, but the measures before the House have rather more stringent controls than does the precedent. The noble Viscount is concerned to ensure that appropriate democratic accountability is brought to the way in which the LBRO gives directions to a local authority. We believe that the ministerial consent requirement will have a similar effect in practice as the approach set out in the amendment. The LBRO will propose directions, but Ministers will be accountable for consenting to their use. The provisions in Clause 7 are vital in enabling the LBRO to achieve its objective; sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that the LBRO uses its power to direct compliance with guidance in a responsible manner.
	The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked how the LBRO could enforce its directions. Of course, local authorities, as she will know probably better than anyone else in the House this evening, are required to comply with directions. Failure to do so would be a breach of their statutory duty. The LBRO can seek to enforce the breach and third parties can sue if they are harmed by that breach of statutory duty. So it puts the local authority at risk of being sued by third parties.
	We mentioned in Committee—and the noble Viscount dealt to some extent with this argument in moving his amendment—that the inclusion of this power has the support of business, notably the British Retail Consortium. It certainly does. The CBI has written this week to the Government, saying that it would welcome moves to maintain the powers of the Local Better Regulation Office. It said:
	"Business has been promised a better regulatory environment if regulators are awarded new powers. But this requires regulators to deliver on this, and we think it important that the LBRO is given the appropriate powers to ensure that local authorities do just this. Maintaining Clause 7 as currently drafted, which gives the LBRO powers of direction, would help achieve this".
	Noble Lords may have seen the briefing notes from the major stakeholders, but I remind them of the position of other bodies that by no stretch of the imagination could be described as businesses. The Trading Standards Institute said that it believes that,
	"it is necessary that LBRO has the power to direct local authorities that are at odds with central guidance in order to ensure a consistent regulatory environment".
	The National Consumer Council said:
	"The LBRO cannot secure consistency of practice if local authority regulatory services are free to choose to ignore its guidance. Indeed, we are concerned that the requirements on LBRO to consult and obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before issuing a direction are too onerous and might work to dissuade LBRO from legitimately exercising this power".
	They go further than the Government do. Clearly, it would be unhappy with this specific amendment which would put the use of the power even further from LBRO's hands.
	I will just sum up our case on this. We believe LBRO's powers in Clause 7 are precedented; based squarely on Hampton; have the support of business, and not just business but also consumers and the professions, particularly the Trading Standards Institute; are subject to controls recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which we have accepted in full; and are designed in such a way as to ensure the appropriate accountability to Parliament. For those reasons, I am afraid that we stick with our view that Clause 7, as drafted, is appropriate in this case. These are intended as backup powers and it is in that context that we suggest that they are appropriate for this Bill.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, before I try to reply as best I can, may I refer to the Food Safety Act which the Minister mentioned? There are two things. Under Section 40 the Secretary of State can issue a code of practice, giving food authorities guidance on how they should enforce food law, and under Section 41A the Food Standards Agency can direct a food authority. Even if a food authority is also a local authority, that power is much narrower than anything proposed in this Bill because it is specifically about the single subject of food. I wonder if the Minister would agree that we are looking at a precedent. It is not right to use the Food Standards Agency as a sufficient precedent for what is in this Bill.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I accept the enormous amount of work that the noble Viscount has put into researching this, no doubt more work than I have put in. The advice that I have received is that the Food Standards Agency is a good precedent for what we are intending here. It may not be absolutely on all fours, precedents rarely are, but it gives that agency the power to direct local authorities. That is precisely what we are seeking for the LBRO here. It is a backup power with all that that is intended to mean. One difference the other way is that the Food Standards Agency only needs to consult the Secretary of State. Here if the LBRO is to direct any local authority, it has to have the prior consent of the Secretary of State himself or herself.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I think that in substance we are in very close agreement. I am not in any way contesting the need to be able to bring a recalcitrant local authority into line. Nothing in my amendment takes away the power to do just that. My argument is: why have a dog when you can bark yourself? Also, no non-departmental government body has, even if it has the power of direction, ever exercised it. Why is it sensible to set a precedent on this occasion? It seems to me that what I have proposed meets everything in substance that the Minister wishes to see. I have effectively two choices—three really. I could hope that down the other end the argument will be read with sufficient care, the Government will come to see the force of it and an amendment will be introduced. I am not entirely optimistic that that will be the case. So, in thanking all those who have taken part in this relatively short debate and noting particularly what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 109.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 14 to 18 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Clause 7, page 4, line 31, at end insert—
	"( ) such local authorities in England and Wales, or such persons representative of local authorities in England and Wales, as LBRO considers appropriate,"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in Committee, we sought to delete the whole of Clause 7. I did not at that point argue a matter that I argued elsewhere in relation to the Bill, which is the special position of local authorities with regard to consultation—in this case, consultation by LBRO for giving a direction. Under Clause 7(5),
	"LBRO must consult ... any relevant regulator, and such other persons as",
	it considers appropriate. My amendment would make it entirely clear, as I am sure must be the case, that local authorities have a particular position. I have used wording that the Government have used in similar amendments to the Bill and, although I never expect that my drafting will be accepted in terms by the Government, I hope that the point will be taken. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her amendment, which we suspect is designed to complete the job that she began in Grand Committee by tabling an amendment that required LBRO to consult local authorities prior to issuing guidance under Clause 6. We considered that amendment and made an amendment of our own to include that requirement in the Bill. We are delighted to say that we will consider this new amendment as well. I hope to return with our form of words at Third Reading.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I happily beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 not moved.]
	Clause 9 [Advice to Ministers of the Crown]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Clause 9, page 5, line 10, after "of" insert "existing or proposed"

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is a simple amendment, which I hope the Government will accept, because they were in favour of the principle of the thing when we discussed it in Committee.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord hopes that we will accept it. We certainly intend to consider it, if that will help him.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in that case, I need not go on for very long. The point is whether the LBRO will consider prospective as well as existing legislation. The noble Lord said in Grand Committee that that might be included under the words "any other matter" in subsection (1)(d). As legislation is specifically referred to in subsection (1)(b), we should include the words that I suggest. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27 in this group. I pause hopefully, but no one is leaping to intervene.
	Clause 11 provides for LBRO to publish,
	"a list specifying matters to which a local authority should give priority when allocating resources to its relevant functions".
	My concern is that LBRO's powers should not extend to allocating to the regulatory functions from the whole of a local authority's budget. Rather, they should be limited to the priorities within what a local authority itself allocates to the functions. I hope that the Government can reassure me that that is what is intended. If the Government take the view that LBRO should have the greater power of saying to a local authority, "Thou shalt devote X million out of your Y hundreds of millions to the relevant functions", that is too much power on the part of LBRO. I therefore hope that the Government can assure me that this is intended to be a more limited intervention.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I have tabled Amendment No. 28 in this group. This is an issue that we covered in Committee. It concerns publishing the details of representations made to LBRO and the identity of those making the representations. The background to this was that I felt it important that, if you wish to influence public policy by lobbying LBRO, you should at least be prepared to be identified as having done so. The compulsive litigant or compulsive complainant should at least be identified as such.
	The Minister suggested on 28 January at col. GC 132 that this would fall foul of the Data Protection Act as he understood it. Between Committee stage and tonight, I have taken the trouble to ask, at a fairly unofficial level, a data protection lawyer about this. I am advised—I am sure that the serried tanks of the Bill team and its huge legal battery will have much better advice than I have—that where people put themselves forward and make direct representations, they would not be afforded the protection of the Data Protection Act, but that they would be if their support was implied. That is to say that, if the chamber of commerce had done something, you could mention the chamber of commerce but not the firms that were part of it. If you said that a company had made a representation, you could name the company but not individual directors.
	I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to think about this. Transparency is important in these areas. If you wish to influence public policy, you should have the courage of your convictions and be prepared to stand up and say what you are standing for. The dangers of allowing this to be done without disclosure are considerable.

Lord Bach: My Lords, these amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, give me an opportunity to remind the House briefly of the intentions behind Clause 11. Before that, I should refer to Amendment No. 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. His amendment gives me an opportunity to give further assurances about how the Government expect the advisory role of LBRO to operate in practice. The noble Lord raised an important point in Committee in relation to its ability to offer advice to the Government, not only on the existing legislation enforced by local authorities but on proposals in the pipeline. Clearly, LBRO will have considerable expertise to offer and the Government could get just as much benefit, if not more, from advice on legislation in development. We share the noble Lord's view that LBRO should be able to advise on this. We consider the provision in Clause 9(1)(d), that LBRO may give advice on,
	"any other matter relating to the exercise by local authorities in England and Wales of their relevant functions",
	would be sufficient legal basis for LBRO to offer advice on legislative proposals. To put the matter beyond doubt, let me say that the amendment of the noble Lord is helpful and that, if he will withdraw it tonight, we will come back on Third Reading with words that I suspect will be very similar to what he has proposed—they might be a little different. We are grateful to him and will certainly consider his amendment.
	Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I can give her the agreement that she wanted. That is not to accept the amendments but to agree that, in her phrase, "more limited intervention" is what we are trying to achieve here, rather than what she fears. I want to make it clear that the provisions in Clause 11 will not prevent councils from giving due regard to their own priorities. These can be given equal—or even greater—weight than the national priorities when it comes to planning their operations and how resources are allocated. The clause is intended purely to give some order and discipline to the way in which the centre sets priorities for local authorities. I would have quoted the Rogers report in more detail to answer the noble Baroness, but I can give her what I hope she wanted to hear from me, which is that she is right in thinking that we are in favour of more limited intervention and that this would not somehow undermine local authorities' rights.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, wants us to agree that LBRO should publish the names of anyone who makes representations, pursuant to its preparation of a list of regulatory priorities. I am going to argue again that LBRO should have the flexibility to, where appropriate, withhold the details of those who made representations, not least because the publication of personal data may—and I use that word advisedly—in some circumstances fall foul of the Data Protection Act principles. This duty would require disclosure of the names of anybody making representation in all cases and could give rise, if it fell foul of that Act, to actionable breaches where there is a duty of confidentiality in any particular case.
	Representations may not simply be formal lobbying activities. LBRO is likely, in practice, to follow the example of Peter Rogers when he conducted the first review of regulatory priorities last year and to hold a number of workshops and focus groups with the public, regulators and businesses. Under this amendment, the names of all those involved would need to be published. That would not be appropriate. In practice, LBRO is likely to want to publish the names in many cases. This is good practice, as when the Government published most of the names and responses of those who responded to the consultation on the Bill, but we do not believe that it should be a requirement. The same rules should apply as to any other consultation that might impact on government policy.
	We understand the noble Lord's concern that undue influence might be brought to bear on LBRO's activity and that the light of publicity might help to eradicate this. Let me give what further reassurance I can. LBRO alone cannot and will not take the final decision that will put the priorities into effect. Under Clause 11(7), the consent of the Secretary of State is needed before the priorities become statutory priorities. The Secretary of State will expect to see a logically argued case based on clear evidence before LBRO's recommendations are accepted. This is what the representation requirement is meant to capture. The hidden influence of individual bodies alone would not be sufficient to sway the final decision. Therefore, I am afraid that we cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am delighted with the response from the Minister on my Amendment No. 24, because he has accepted the point, and I am happy with the drafting. As a matter of fact, I support the other amendments in the group, in the names of my noble friend Lord Hodgson and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am glad that the points behind the amendments of the noble Baroness will also be considered further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 11 [Enforcement priorities]:
	[Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 not moved.]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 29:
	After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
	"Memorandum of understanding
	LBRO must enter into a memorandum of understanding with the devolved authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland as to how they will work together in the exercise of their respective functions."

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, we return to an issue that has concerned me regarding the different treatment emerging in the United Kingdom as a result of the devolved nature of Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is a serious weakness in the planned approach of the Bill, about which the Government are only now starting to be clear and honest. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, was uncharacteristically ratty with me in Grand Committee when I pointed that out in our debate on Clause 73, which is on extent.
	I shall briefly readdress my arguments. Paragraph 4 of the Explanatory Notes states:
	"The Hampton Review set out a vision for a risk-based approach to regulation and included a set of principles for regulatory inspection and enforcement, based around risk and proportionality".
	Nowhere does that paragraph mention the episodic nature of this approach, whereby it may or may not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Furthermore, in the debate on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, said:
	"The UK's better regulation agenda is widely regarded across the world as being the most ambitious anywhere".—[Official Report, 28/11/07; col. 1238.]
	He then prayed in aid this legislation as part of that work. That is all very well, but the Bill is not about the UK; for the most part, it is about England and Wales, with some references to Scotland and Northern Ireland coming along behind. When the Minister talked about the UK, that showed how far he is adrift from what the Bill seeks to achieve. Paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes states:
	"The Hampton Review found that the diffuse structure of local authority regulatory enforcement increases uncertainty and administrative burdens for business".
	We are not tackling this issue as regards Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Bill is flawed in respect of firms that operate on a UK-wide basis. Only when one reaches paragraph 17 of the Explanatory Notes does it become clear what the Bill's remit is in different parts of the UK.
	I tried to think about how we could move this game forward. My thought was that Clause 12 might be relevant, as it requires the establishment of memorandums of understanding with certain key regulators—those with which LBRO and local authorities are expected to have the greatest amount of day-to-day contact. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will forgive me if I quote what he said in Grand Committee. He said:
	"There is of course a problem of local authorities receiving mixed messages from central government ... Having some memoranda of understanding is vitally important: it helps to improve the consistency of messages coming through to local authorities from central government".—[Official Report, 23/1/08; col. GC 136.]
	What I am trying to achieve in the amendment is a memorandum of understanding between LBRO within England and Wales and the appropriate authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland, with a view to avoiding mixed messages. That is what my new clause is all about.
	My proposal would not infringe anyone's sovereignty. I am sure that the Minister will say—the Bill team pointed this out at our meeting on Monday—that we cannot require the devolved Administration in Scotland or Northern Ireland to enter into memoranda of understanding. I am not clear how we will require one of their regulators to enter into any meaningful MoU. I can understand that there is a requirement to force them to do something, but a worthwhile MoU between LBRO and the regulators listed in Clause 12 will come about after negotiations—because of give-and-take in discussions—on how best to approach this matter. Under my amendment, that would be the case for the devolved Administrations. There would be an opportunity for discussions to take place and for a process with a level playing field to emerge. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter carefully, with a view to making the Bill a better piece of legislation, because it would provide the certainty of a level playing field across the United Kingdom as a whole.
	In Grand Committee, we discussed an amendment similar to my second amendment in the group, Amendment No. 106 to Clause 73. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the long and detailed letter that he sent me by hand today, no less. I had the benefit of it ahead of this debate. He states that the clause,
	"is not designed to specify what provision we are making about the law in each jurisdiction. That is done in the main body of the Bill itself".
	I accept that, but if you are going to have to work through this legislation, you will find it quite difficult, when you reach subsections (1), (3) and (4) of Clause 23, to work out that this is the part of the Bill that tells you that Part 2 does not apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland. If, as I suspect, his speaking notes state that this amendment is not acceptable and will break every constitutional precept, I hope that he will find ways to make it absolutely clear in this legislation where and what it applies to. This Bill is meant to ensure better regulation. Better regulation is clear regulation and we have failed to achieve proper clarity in this significant area.
	I understand that this is a difficult and tricky issue, but we must find a way, if we are trying to help UK plc to have a level playing field. Finding some way of tackling the issues implicit for the devolved Administrations is critical. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, which certainly captures how the Government expect LBRO to behave in practice. However, as the noble Lord anticipated, the amendment brings us into territory which risks falling foul of the devolution settlements. Of course it will be crucial for LBRO to work with relevant parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland if we are to secure the greatest possible benefits for businesses operating across the United Kingdom. That has always been behind the noble Lord's thoughts on the Bill and on other legislation.
	We are grateful to Welsh Ministers for their interest in the Bill and for their commitment to its full application in Wales. Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland have made it clear that they do not want the Bill and LBRO to apply to devolved matters. The noble Lord is welcome to take up the issue with them, but responsibility for devolved matters lies ultimately with the devolved Administrations and their electorates. As one would expect from the noble Lord, the amendment has been carefully phrased in terms of the requirement on LBRO. Nevertheless, I am afraid that the amendment would by implication place a requirement on the devolved Administrations to enter into a memorandum of understanding with LBRO. The requirement on LBRO to enter into the memorandum would be meaningless without that corollary. That is just not possible without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.
	Of course, businesses will want to see as much joint working as possible between LBRO and the devolved Administrations. The guide accompanying the Bill makes it clear that we expect LBRO to work with the devolved Administrations in so far as it is authorised to do so. I am glad to say that LBRO, in its present company form, has already begun to establish productive relationships with Scotland and Northern Ireland, both at the governing level and with professional bodies such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and representative organisations. It is on track to form strong working relationships. Here, as elsewhere, we believe that LBRO can be trusted to get on with the job using common sense; certainly businesses will look to it to do so.
	I am afraid that we cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment, because it could not be put into operation. I am grateful for what he said about the letter that I gave him today on Amendment No. 106. In order to make sure that this is as clear as possible to those interested in the Bill, the guide that will be published on the Bill will set out clearly what parts apply where. That information can, of course, be found in the Bill, as the noble Lord has acknowledged, but we will make sure, as best we can, that one part of the guide will set that out, so that anyone using the Bill will be able to find out whether it applies in various parts of the United Kingdom. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance that he will ensure that clarity on this issue is prevalent and pre-eminent when we publish the guide to the Bill. This issue could have significant implications for UK-wide businesses. I hope that we can continue to think about ways to develop it, because, as the Minister and I have discussed, this is not the only area where there is a mismatch. We have to find a way of making sure that the pieces of legislation join up as far as possible if we are not to impose considerable and unnecessary burdens on businesses operating UK-wide. I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance and correspondence and for the efforts of the Bill team to address this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 14 [Ancillary powers]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Clause 14, page 7, line 4, at end insert ", with the consent of the Treasury"

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 inserts the ominous words,
	"with the consent of the Treasury".
	As your Lordships know, I was a Treasury Minister and am, in a sense, reverting to that part of my history. The subsection in question allows the LBRO, for instance, to acquire and dispose of property and to borrow and invest money, although it is not said what the LBRO would invest it in. There appears to be no control over what it does. If it borrows money, I am not sure whether that will have either an express or an implied government guarantee. Let us suppose that the LBRO acquired some office property, perhaps for its own use, with the aid of a mortgage or loan of some sort, and the value of the office block went down, so that it was unable to cover the loan and found itself in negative equity. I am sure that before long some people will find themselves in negative equity. We hope that they will not, but if they did, would the Government stand behind it? That is the question. If they do not, they will have to pay more to borrow the money, which is the way these things work. It is an important and relevant question. The sums of money will be small in terms of the Government's accounts, but where will they appear in the Government's accounts, if at all? Is it a completely freestanding body? These are the thoughts that lie behind my amendment to insert the requirement for the consent of the Treasury to significant financial transactions that are potentially permitted by this clause.
	I am interested that the Government have grouped my Amendment No. 30 with their Amendments Nos. 31 to 36, which all deal, in Clauses 15 and 16, with the giving of guidance by the Secretary of State and by Welsh Ministers respectively. It may be that the reason for grouping those amendments with my amendment on finance is that some of the guidance will be financial. I would not think that in the least improper. On the contrary, I would think it wise, particularly if there were going to be express or implied guarantees behind any money borrowed by the body in question. Amendments Nos. 33 and 36 take up points that I made in Committee about guidance. I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for agreeing to those amendments. I think there are some potentially important financial considerations with regard to Amendment No. 30. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, this gives me an opportunity to clarify that the LBRO will be subject to all the usual rules for the management of public money. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised the question of the LBRO's money. Provided the LBRO is acting within its remit and objectives, Her Majesty's Government would have to stand behind it financially, as they do with every other non-departmental public body. It has been created as an NDPB with operational independence and freedom from day-to-day interference by Ministers. I am sure that the House will think that a good thing. The government amendments in this group seek to limit the scope for inappropriate micromanagement by Ministers.
	This clause is essential to provide sufficient legal certainty that the LBRO will be able to engage in activities that are helpful or necessary to the discharge of its functions and the achievements of its objectives. The clause provides specific examples of what will be covered by the ancillary powers provision—some financial, many not. There are many precedents for such provisions. Natural England was established by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Section 13 of that Act specifies that Natural England may,
	"do anything that appears to it to be conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions".
	The section then sets out a list of examples, which includes all the actions included in the LBRO list, as well as some additional ones.
	There are good reasons why detailed ministerial control, which would be accorded if Treasury approval was needed, is unnecessary. The first is that reliance on ancillary powers is circumscribed by the requirement that anything done must be,
	"necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of ... its functions".
	Secondly, the LBRO will be subject to all the normal rules of public spending. Thirdly, it will be financially accountable to Parliament in the normal way through the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Fourthly, it must provide the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor-General with a copy of its accounts on an annual basis.
	We argue that this is a routine provision for independent public bodies, with a good recent precedent. The clause is essential in ensuring that the LBRO can function effectively in day-to-day business matters. We do not think that adding a new level of control would do anything other than significantly hamper the organisation in its routine work.
	That takes me to government Amendments Nos. 31 to 36. They place a number of important controls on the right of Ministers to give directions to the LBRO. At Second Reading and in Committee, noble Lords were concerned about the precise uses to which Ministers' powers of direction would be put. I repeat that it is the Government's intention that these powers of direction should be used as nothing more than a backstop. The LBRO will be operating as an independent body, and it is intended that Ministers will use the power only in cases where the organisation acts against the public interest. Naturally, we hope that that situation will not arise, but Ministers will be accountable to Parliament for the performance and conduct of the LBRO and there has to be a power of direction to ensure that accountability is assured. We accept that the powers in Clauses 15 and 16 were too broadly drawn for this purpose, and we have already accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to directions over the LBRO's own direction-giving power.
	In Committee, noble Lords suggested a number of additional changes, which we agreed in principle to consider. First, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, argued that the reference to "general or specific" directions was too broad; secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that a formal consultation process should be required before directions are issued; and, thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested that there should be a requirement that any directions should be laid before Parliament or the Welsh Assembly where appropriate. We have decided to make the appropriate changes and we are grateful to the various noble Lords for their suggestions. Our amendments, which I hope to move in due course, will implement them.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify one point in relation to my noble friend's amendment. He referred to the support that the Treasury would give to the LBRO. Was that de facto or de jure? Will it actually happen or is it bound to happen by law? Reading the "Status" paragraph in Schedule 1, I was struck that it was as close to saying that the LBRO is flying on its own as it could be without those words being used. The paragraph states:
	"LBRO is not to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown ... The property of LBRO is not to be regarded as the property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown".
	I understand that the Government may be forced to stand behind the LBRO but I should like to know whether they are bound to do so by law.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am advised that the organisation will be treated like any other NDPB in this instance. However, I think that the points raised in this debate are worthy of a letter setting out how we intend the finances to work here; that is, setting out the relationship between the Treasury and this body. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to write to them about that.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, that would be most helpful. I am somewhat reassured by what the Minister said on the financial provisions and I am grateful to him for accepting the suggestions that I and others made in Committee on Clauses 15 and 16. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 15 [Guidance or directions by the Secretary of State]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 33:
	Clause 15, page 7, line 13, leave out "general or specific"
	Clause 15, page 7, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) Before giving any guidance or directions under this section the Secretary of State must consult—
	(a) LBRO, and(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers likely to be affected by the guidance or directions, or persons representative of such persons."
	Clause 15, page 7, line 16, at end insert "and lay a copy of any such guidance or directions before Parliament"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Guidance or directions by Welsh Ministers]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 34 to 36:
	Clause 16, page 7, line 30, leave out "general or specific"
	Clause 16, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
	"( ) Before giving any guidance or directions under this section the Welsh Ministers must consult—
	(a) LBRO, and(b) such other persons as the Welsh Ministers consider likely to be affected by the guidance or directions, or persons representative of such persons."
	Clause 16, page 7, line 34, at end insert "and lay a copy of any such guidance or directions before the National Assembly for Wales"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Orders under Part 1]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Clause 19, page 9, line 38, after "section" insert "4(7),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 25 [Nomination of primary authorities]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Clause 25, page 11, line 30, after "agreed" insert "in writing"

Lord Bach: My Lords, this group includes Amendment No. 39, to which I shall also speak. On reflection, I will not, as it is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, but perhaps I may respond to it in due course.
	Amendment No. 38 concerns a small matter but it was one on which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, moved an amendment in Committee and we thought that he was right about it. Where a local authority agrees with a business that it will act as the business's primary authority, the agreement should be made in writing, and that should be stated in the Bill. Of course, it is likely that the LBRO would register a primary authority partnership only where it received notification in writing of an agreement between a business and a local authority, but we believe that there is some benefit in making that a requirement and that is what we do in Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's agreement to the amendment by putting it in writing in the form of an amendment. He has taken on board not only the point that I made but also the drafting, simple as it was.
	In Amendment No. 39, I am concerned about a quite separate point. At present, when a primary authority lays down how a series of local authorities are to carry out their responsibilities in respect of, say, a chain of shops, the local authorities in which the shops are situated all over the country have no certainty of being told whether their authority will be controlled by the agreement made between the primary authority and the headquarters of the business concerned.
	When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, I was told, "It's all right because it will all be on a website, so they can look it up quite easily if they are thinking of going to have a look at a shop". However, in a high street, some shops will be owned by national chains—we all know that any high street has a lot of shops owned by national chains. Others will be independent—I hope that as many as possible of them will be because I like to see independent shops in high streets—and some will be franchises. As we know from Committee, it will be extremely difficult to know whether franchises will be controlled through a primary authority or whether they will be treated as independents. Therefore, the local authority regulator will have to go through the website looking at all the shops in the high street before he sets out to see whether they are complying with the regulations. That is why I am saying that the LBRO should let the junior authorities know whether an agreement is in place. I have also provided in the amendment that they should be told when it is proposed that a primary authority will be appointed so that, if they want to, they can object to it.
	It is not particularly easy to tell who owns the shops in a high street. Some will be trading under names which are not the names of the companies that own them but trade names, and that will add to the complication for the local authority regulators. I do not want the regulators to be placed in the position where they go into a shop—for example, with a view to enforcing some food regulations—only to be told, "Push off. There's an agreement with our headquarters that you are not supposed to do this. You're supposed to do it another way". That would be bad for the local authority regulators. Therefore, it is important that the junior authorities, as I call them, know when such agreements are either proposed or enforced. That is the intention behind Amendment No. 39. However, I am grateful for Amendment No. 38.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I shall support—very briefly, your Lordships will be pleased to hear—my noble friend Lord Cope in his Amendment No. 39, which will make sure that the regulated party and, crucially, the regulators will be completely clear who is responsible for enforcement.

Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendment No. 39 gives me an opportunity to discuss how we envisage primary authority partnerships will be publicised in practice. We understand the concerns of the noble Lord about how the existence of primary authority partnerships will be brought to the attention of local authorities. I like to think that we can put his mind to rest.
	The critical issue is the register of partnerships that the LBRO will be required to maintain under Clause 25(6). The primary authority provisions are, deliberately, closely built on the basis of tried and tested voluntary arrangements which local authorities have maintained. There are a large number of such partnerships and they are listed on databases maintained by LACORS and the Health and Safety Executive. When a serious regulatory issue arises relating to a multi-site business, all that local authority enforcers have to do is simply look the company up on LACORS's or the HSE's database and consult the authority which has taken on that role. In practice, there is no difficulty in finding out whether a partnership exists and which areas of regulatory activity are relevant. As with the existing voluntary schemes, the LBRO database will make this very clear. The process we are proposing is no more complicated than what authorities already require of themselves under voluntary arrangements at present, but it will be more rigorous and give businesses the certainty that they need.
	We feel that the amendment may rest on the assumption that local authorities will need to keep tabs on each partnership just in case something untoward emerges. That is not the case. Local authorities will only need to refer to it if there is a specific problem to be dealt with where an enforcement action is necessary. Local authorities that already participate in the voluntary guidance on home lead schemes will find that it is simply an extension of existing practice—but, of course, the database will be the responsibility of the LBRO rather than other bodies.
	It may be helpful to go through a hypothetical series of events. Say an enforcing officer in local authority A establishes that there is a trading standards problem with a business that needs attention. It is not an emergency, so the exemptions created by Clause 28 do not apply, and the requirement to contact the primary authority takes effect. All the officer needs to do is look up the company's name on the database. If there is a partnership—there may not be, but if there is one—three pieces of information will be listed against it: the name of the primary authority, the field of regulation within which it has effect, and the contact details for notification of the issues. It will be very clear if there is a trading standards partnership in existence and about the appropriate steps for getting in touch with it.
	It is important to think through the practicalities of the scheme. We think that the scheme that we are intending to set up, which relies a lot on what has existed before, is practical and can work. For that reason we are not persuaded that the amendment is necessary.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene here but, as the Minister will realise when we come to the groups of amendments with which I am involved, the question of numbers of prosecutions, and therefore numbers of regulated bodies or individuals that might be prosecuted, will become important. Can he give the House any idea of what proportion there is now, and what proportion is anticipated, of enforcement actions likely to be covered by instructions from primary authorities or the requirement to consult them?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, but it is extremely hard to answer his question because it will need the development of the primary authority principle to know from experience how widespread the effect will be. Perhaps he will let me consider what he has said and maybe on a later amendment we can come back with a better answer.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 39:
	Clause 25, page 12, line 13, at end insert—
	"( ) LBRO must inform the local authorities in whose area the regulated person carries on the activity being regulated—
	(a) when it is proposed to nominate a primary authority, and(b) when such an authority has been nominated."

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I was not particularly happy with what the Minister said but I do not wish to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
	Clause 27 [Enforcement action]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Clause 27, page 12, line 27, at end insert "pursuant to the relevant function"

Lord Bach: My Lords, we come to an important series of amendments which deal with various matters, many raised in Committee, relating to the primary authority's provisions in Part 2. I will speak to my Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 44 in due course.
	The first amendment is technical, aiming to tackle an unintended omission in Clause 27. Primary authority partnerships will be established between businesses and local authorities, and will cover particular areas of regulation. That situation reflects practice under the existing voluntary schemes. Firms will commonly have trading standards partnerships with, for example, a county council and environmental health partnerships with a district council. To use the language of Clause 24, they will be nominated to play the part of primary authority for the "relevant function".
	Clause 27 needs to be limited to reflect that specialisation. An enforcing authority should only be under an obligation to consult the primary authority before taking enforcement actions that follow from the regulatory function in question. For example, an enforcing authority should be under an obligation to contact a business's primary authority with responsibility for environmental health if, and only if, the issue at hand is an environmental health issue. It should not be required to contact the primary authority responsible, for instance, for trading standards. That reflects practice under the existing home lead schemes, where local authorities will in many cases contact different lead authorities for different areas of regulation. Enforcing authorities should not be required to consult on enforcement actions of every sort. Amendment No. 40 would make this restriction clear.
	Amendment No. 41 will remove the LBRO's power to delegate to another body its arbitration functions under Schedule 4. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Berkeley, expressed concern in the Committee that the LBRO's power to delegate its arbitration function could result in another body directing a local authority under paragraph 7 of Schedule 4. It has never been our intention that the delegation power should be used in this way.
	The LBRO will be a relatively small body with a wide-ranging scope. The types of cases that can be referred to the LBRO for arbitration could range from agricultural produce to zoo licensing, dog breeding to explosives. We do not expect the LBRO to have the necessary in-house expertise to effectively arbitrate on all the issues that could be referred to it. Instead, we expect it to consult with, and take the advice of, expert bodies such as national regulators when arbitrating. We think that sufficient provision is made for this purpose without the LBRO delegating its arbitration function to another body. In particular, under Clause 14:
	"LBRO may do anything which it thinks necessary and expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions".
	That could include seeking advice from a national regulator when arbitrating. In addition, under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4, the LBRO must consult with the relevant national regulator, and may consult other persons it considers appropriate, when arbitrating. Therefore, we are removing the power for the LBRO to delegate its arbitration function.
	Amendments Nos. 42 and 44 will specify those matters which must be exempt from the requirement to notify a primary authority before enforcement action is taken. For reasons that were discussed in Committee, we considered it important to retain as much flexibility as possible for exemptions to the primary authority provisions to be dealt with by order. Noble Lords may wish to refer to the guide accompanying the Bill, which lists the categories of exemptions that we now intend to make here. The detail of these exemptions needs to be worked up in consultation with those on the ground. We shall consult on the details later this year. We were persuaded by the strength of the argument presented in Committee that where it is possible to do so, such exemptions should be put in the Bill.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who I am delighted to see in his place—almost every other hour he is elsewhere in the building chairing the Crossrail committee—tabled an amendment in Committee which would have retained the ability to specify exemptions by order, but set out those circumstances that the orders must address on the face of the Bill. We thought that was a sensible approach, and we have therefore brought forward an amendment which will have that effect. The amendment will set out four exemptions which must be specified in the order. I do not need to set out what the exemptions say as they are in our amendment.
	I have spoken to the government amendments but there is another one in the group. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 43 stands in my name. I pause to see whether the Government will accept it. I see the Minister shakes his head. It is similar to points that the Government have accepted, acknowledging the position of local authorities and providing for consultation with them. That explains the amendment. I hope that the explanation carries some force. I do not want to spend a long time on it.
	I welcome the matters that the Government are putting into the Bill regarding exemptions. An acknowledgement of consultation would be an appropriate step. I welcome the government amendments in the group. On delegation, the Government are absolutely right. I raise a concern which has been expressed to me and I believe to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, which is worried that,
	"the effect of this amendment could be considerable for the resources of the LBRO and may bring into doubt their ability to meet the demand for adjudications and/or dealing with the (potentially large) number of references it might get under this process".
	I would welcome comment from the Minister on the resources point.
	On Amendment No. 42, I cannot restrain myself from noting that we now have a provision that the Secretary of State "shall" do something. Amendments to change "may" to "shall" normally come from the Opposition Benches. The Government may find it is quoted back at them on other occasions.
	Paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 44 states that the application of a section would be "wholly disproportionate". I stumbled slightly over "wholly"; it is not something I would have expected to see in legislation. That seems to be more the language of conversation or rhetoric. Given that there is reference to proportionality elsewhere in the Bill, I wonder whether there is a particular significance in this.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I speak against government Amendment No. 41. That amendment removes the ability of the Local Better Regulation Office to delegate its functions under Schedule 4 to another person as it considers appropriate. Perhaps I may jog your Lordships' memories back to day three of Committee. Noble Lords will remember that that aspect of the Bill was debated by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, answered the debate at col. GC 249 and, in his usual sympathetic style, agreed to review this part further and to look at "delegation", "responsibility" and "function".
	The Government's proposed solution is to remove that paragraph from Schedule 4. It is an unsatisfactory solution as, while it addresses the point made that the Local Better Regulation Office should not be able to delegate or discharge its responsibility to another, at the same time it now makes the reverse possible, as the Local Better Regulation Office could now not delegate at all. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, said that this provision is,
	"critical to the success of the scheme".—[Official Report, 28/1/08; col. GC 248.]
	The Local Better Regulation Office is a small body and the arbitration role that it undertakes under Schedule 4 has the potential to become burdensome, to skew the resources away from other tasks and not take advantage of expertise in other organisations capable of ably assisting.
	The Trading Standards Institute and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have expressed their concerns about this amendment and the impact it could have on the Local Better Regulation Office to engage with organisations such as themselves and the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Office on Regulatory Services to fulfil its obligations and responsibilities under the Bill. No one is suggesting here that the Local Better Regulation Office should be able to discharge its responsibilities to another, as could be interpreted from the original text, but the pendulum seems to have swung the other way to force this new body to be much more insular and not to take advantage of the expertise that exists within these other organisations.
	My question to the Minister is: are the Government able to reconsider and to provide an amendment that addresses the concerns that were communicated in Committee without removing this paragraph completely and frustrating the clear intention that the Government had here?

Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I do not want to make any criticisms. On Amendment No. 44, I just want to say a word of gratitude to the Minister. There are two lessons to be learnt from this amendment, which the Government, at my suggestion, have been good enough to accept. If one knows the criteria in advance, whereby some particular function will be used, one does not need delegated legislation. We have far too much of it. Just look how easy it is to put it in the Bill. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for ensuring that this will be in the Bill and that we do not have to endure even more subordinate legislation.
	My other point relates to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. Paragraph (b) in the amendment is quite important. I do not mind whether it is "wholly disproportionate" or just plain "disproportionate". If it does not matter, there is no point in involving massive bureaucracy. There is a great advantage in the noble Lord bringing forward an amendment that ensures that there will not be an imposition of bureaucracy on local authorities for quite minor matters, so I want to say thank you.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, although I am not sure that I am quite so grateful to the noble Baroness opposite or to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
	Amendment No. 43 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the Secretary of State to consult local authorities before laying an order that would set out the exemptions to the primary authority requirements in Clause 27. We are sympathetic to the intentions behind the amendment. As the House will know, the Government's code of practice sets a high standard for consultation relating to any new area of policy development. This is important not least in the interests of better regulation, which is the subject of this Bill.
	Noble Lords will be aware that, as was said in Committee, the Government have recently reviewed their processes of consultation and will revise their code of practice shortly. I assure noble Lords that any use of the order-making powers in Clause 28 will be subject to consultation and will clearly need the input of the experts working with practitioners from local authorities as well as from businesses to get the details right. However, an explicit statutory requirement to that effect is unnecessary. The spirit of the noble Baroness's amendment is agreed to, but it does not need to be in the Bill in this instance.
	The noble Baroness invited me to refer to the phrase "wholly disproportionate". That relates to orders that the Secretary of State is required to make. Proportionality is a fine balancing test and often it is not crystal clear whether contact will be proportionate. Where contacting the primary authority is wholly disproportionate—a stronger test than merely disproportionate—there must be an exemption. That is what the provision does.
	The noble Baroness also asked about resources. Under Clause 12 and the memorandums of understanding, we expect LBRO to make arrangements for sharing resource and expertise on arbitration issues. The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is that, although we have taken out that part from the schedule, there is under Clause 14 the right for LBRO to do anything that,
	"it thinks necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions".
	That can include seeking advice from a national regulator when arbitrating. I also point out that, under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4, LBRO must consult the relevant national regulator and may consult other persons it considers to be appropriate when arbitrating. By removing part of the schedule, we have not made it impossible—in fact, it is still very possible—for LBRO to consult.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Enforcement action: references to LBRO]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Schedule 4, page 48, leave out lines 37 to 39
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Enforcement action: exclusions]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Clause 28, page 13, line 31, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 44:
	Clause 28, page 13, line 36, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State shall in particular under subsection (1) prescribe circumstances for the purpose of securing that section 27(1) to (4) shall not apply—
	(a) where the enforcement action is required urgently to avoid a significant risk of serious harm to human health or the environment (including the health of animals or plants) or the financial interests of consumers;(b) where the application of section 27(1) to (4) would be wholly disproportionate."
	On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that Report begin again not before 8.44 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Autism: National Strategy

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the development of a national strategy for autistic spectrum disorder; and what consultations they are having with the three devolved Administrations.
	My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about autism and am grateful to noble Lords who indicated a willingness to support me. I take this opportunity to thank all of them, especially those who manage to get in on this short debate.
	I do not intend to speak about methodologies beyond declaring that my personal experience is that progress for more of those who are on the autistic spectrum can best be made through an eclectic approach; there is no easy, one-size-fits-all solution. Behavioural aspects, sensory difficulties and communication problems must be addressed together. Neither should aspects of co-morbidity be treated separately. We must get away from an approach that labels children and laboriously moves them from what I call one silo to the next.
	That is why I want to ask the Government to rethink the provision and planning of autism services and to work to establish and accommodate within a national strategy the best of what is happening in England, in Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. The voluntary sector within the three devolved entities has found it beneficial to come together with the Irish Republic to establish an autism co-operative: the Celtic Nations Autism Partnership. However, the United Kingdom as a whole and we in this Parliament have an obligation to better manage procedures. Autism services are currently a postcode lottery. Those on the spectrum, their parents/carers and their siblings deserve better. Autism is a family issue.
	I was asked in September last by Michael McGimpsey, the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, to chair an independent review of autism services. Without prejudice to what the review team will present within the next month, I want to define some of the shortcomings within our current system. In December 2002, Hall and Elliman published a report entitled Health For All Children—sometimes referred to as Hall 4—in which they endorsed screening and surveillance reviews of babies by health visitors soon after birth and then at roughly monthly intervals until 13 months. Thereafter, they advised only optional contact with parents and "assessment where required" at two years, with nothing further until three to five years.
	Now I ask: "assessment where required" by whom? Is that by a first-time mother, with no baseline against which to make her judgment, or by parents in denial that something is not quite what it should be with their child? In Northern Ireland, a previous Chief Medical Officer issued an instruction based on Hall 4, which was:
	"Formal universal screening for speech and language delay, global development delay, Autism, and post-natal depression is not recommended".
	I stick my chin out: she and Hall 4 were wrong on this point and that guidance should be amended at once.
	There is an irrefutable need for early identification of autistic tendencies, which can be evident when a child is between 18 months and two years. Such identification needs to trigger immediate intervention services concurrent with immediate early assessment and diagnosis. No longer should we have waiting lists that, according to the last Written Answer I received, can be anything up to three years. Those vital three years can never be retrieved. They will be crucial as to whether those with ASD achieve the best possible life outcomes or are destined not to reach their potential.
	My number one proposal is that a two-year structured home visit by a health visitor must be put in place and the current two-year optional visit, with better purpose, must be put back until 30 to 33 months. Let me try to define, in real terms, what that involves. Available epidemiological data suggest a prevalence of ASD of around 90 per 10,000 births. With roughly 750,000 births per annum in the United Kingdom, that means about 6,750 children may come on the ASD register each year. Allowing for initial incorrect suspicion, adding, say 25 per cent, we will have closer to 8,500 children referred for specialist assessment and diagnosis. My review group has calculated that specialist diagnostic services will require about 18 hours per child, on average—some more, some much less.
	In terms of scoping out diagnostic/assessment service capacity, additional capacity must be factored in because of, first, the backlog of cases currently on waiting lists and, secondly, the potential cohort of older, as yet undetected, cases that are still to arise and present to services; we also—thirdly—need provision to cater for Asperger's syndrome, which can become apparent in those between five and 10 years of age. On that basis, our review has identified an immediate need to have 13.3—forgive the 0.3—whole-time equivalent specialists for our 1.75 million population in Northern Ireland; for the UK, we would be looking at a figure of around 480 whole-time equivalent specialists.
	Should we achieve a situation where we effectively cater for every child as efficiently as is humanly possible through early identification, early assessment and early intervention, I could not promise any reduction in specialist services—there is a huge deficiency in adolescent and adult services. However, I do not have time to deal in detail with transitional services and the transfer of meaningful data across departments. Primary education will necessitate teachers and classroom assistants who are "autism aware". Some, in both these areas, are outstanding, but too many are, bluntly, "unaware". In my 23 years in the classroom, I would have been one of the latter.
	But I have a good news story. I have, during the past six months, visited teacher training colleges the length and breadth of Ireland to discuss what is needed in respect of autism-specific modules. In the true spirit of cross-community co-operation, the principals of our two colleges, St Mary's and Stranmillis in Belfast, have responded with a working team, planning just such a teacher training provision for the start of the next academic year. This will be factored into existing special needs courses. It is an enormous leap ahead and I am very grateful to principals Peter Finn and Anne Heaslett.
	I hope that others will refer to transition and data transfer in a more comprehensive manner than I have time to address—I refer to the transition to secondary and tertiary education and the transition to adolescence and adulthood, where, invariably, those with disability are currently left to fall off the precipice at 18 years of age.
	Much can be achieved by a better-directed use of current capabilities and resources. But if we are to have equality of opportunity for those with ASD, we must systematically begin to organise along the lines that I have just outlined. We must have a proper blueprint for action that is properly benchmarked, so that there is accountability within every administrative sector and sub-sector—especially, but not exclusively, within health and education.
	My number two proposal would be that, if we cannot achieve consistency and efficiency by persuasion, the Government must legislate specifically for autism. I hope that that will not be necessary.
	During my research I have found the most caring parents, the most dedicated individuals within the health service and an enthusiastic voluntary sector—probably the best informed and most aware element of all—but each is searching, competing and despairing as it tries to function in a chaotic system in which government departments are yet to enforce cohesion. There is neither cross-cutting nor co-ordination. Sub-sectors must stop protecting their precious little corners and operating in silos.
	I do not want to overrun my time; I simply ask the Minster whether the Government will study our comprehensive review of autism services and seek to give us leadership on this vital issue. Perhaps we could then have a longer and more detailed debate as we plan how quickly and effectively we can move forward.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for securing this important debate on a national strategy for autism.
	Autism is no respecter of national boundaries. Its impact is felt by families, carers, people with autism and those who work with them. It is clear that the more we can work together at a cross-national level to share our ideas, policies, skills, experience and knowledge, the greater the chance we have of meeting the challenges of autism that we face within our own nations.
	It is therefore highly commendable that the national charities of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have formed the Celtic Nations Autism Partnership. This Celtic partnership takes a strategic approach to autism within the voluntary sector and serves to engage with the devolved Governments in the UK on autism far more effectively than ever before.
	May I bring to the attention of noble Lords the capacity-building towards autism, which is currently being undertaken in Wales? In Wales today, 60,000 people are affected by autism—that consists of those who have autism, their families and those who work with them. The Welsh approach to autism is very strategic.
	Autism Cymru, the Welsh autism charity, first inspired, and then worked in partnership with, the Welsh Assembly Government and others to establish an all-age Welsh Assembly Government strategic action plan for autism, which is due to be implemented from April; that is the first of its kind by any Government in the world. In September this year, Autism Cymru, in partnership with the UK research charity Autism Speaks and Cardiff University, is setting up the Wales Autism Research Centre and a chair in autism. This initiative has been supported by the Welsh Assembly Government among others. These are just two out of several examples, which inspire great hope for the future.
	The Celtic nations countries have been bold in their approach and are taking the lead in terms of a strategic outlook and practical developments for autism. The message is clear: Governments need to develop long-lasting and consistently applied strategies and policies for autism. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that the Government expand their vision and engage with the devolved Governments and members of the Celtic Nations Autism Partnership, and start planning for the future as a matter of urgency.

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on bringing forward this debate, which is on a subject of great importance.
	I worked many years ago with Professor Sir Michael Rutter at the Maudsley Hospital. He is one of the earliest experts in this field. I had the opportunity to work with the National Autistic Society in my former constituency at one of its residential institutions in Godalming and, more recently, I have been professionally involved with TreeHouse. That remarkable charity, which is chaired by our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, provides education for parents and professionals and an advocacy service for people affected by autistic spectrum disorder. I was also pleased to hear the noble Baroness refer to Autism Speaks—that wonderful charity raises money for research and is led by Dame Stephanie Shirley, who is a remarkable, fearless and persistent champion of this cause. Already Autism Speaks provides as much as half of the Medical Research Council funding for autism research, which is a reflection of the inadequate recognition of this very important issue. Perhaps half a million people are affected by autism spectrum disorder—one in 110 children—and are in a situation that needs some form of attention.
	I commend to the House the recent report by TreeHouse suggesting that the aggregate annual cost of supporting people with autistic spectrum disorders is around £27.5 billion; £16.25 billion is for services, £10 billion for lost earnings—either for the individuals or their families—and £1.25 billion is for family expenses. If only there was better diagnosis, more appropriate support and better understanding much of that cost and suffering could be reduced. I support those who say that now is the time to look towards a national strategy with increased funding for research into the causes, the diagnosis and the treatment of autism, thus bringing forward the development of effective therapies.
	We need to mandate early development checks on young children that look for signs of autism, and I endorse the comments made by the noble Lord and by David Cameron about the importance of health visitors. We need clear standards for diagnosis, access to early intervention and goals for educational services. It is not acceptable that there are 6,500 fewer state special school places now than 10 years ago. In that time, 147 special state schools have closed, yet these are children who it is extremely difficult to integrate in mainstream education. We need to improve professional training and set standards for social services provisions that recognise the lifelong nature of autism. We need to establish employment support mechanisms specific to autism that allow people with autism to find work that exploits their strengths rather than exposes their weaknesses. We need to monitor and encourage, if not enforce, national standards of provision.
	Now is a timely moment for this debate, which is so overcrowded that we have all had to condense our comments not to just a minute, but to three minutes. I hope the Government will take seriously the messages from it and will act.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on securing this debate. I shall make some brief comments from my experience over the years in general practice in community health, as chair of social services in my borough and from my time as a ward councillor and a Member of Parliament. I am sad to say that in all those roles I met many constituents with children in the autistic spectrum and the children themselves, of course. There was poor provision then as now, despite the Government's worthy statement of intent in 2006 entitled Better Services for People with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder. The combination of difficulties in social interaction, communication and social imagination is notoriously difficult to pick up in the milder cases that are sometimes thought to be due to poor management of the child by the family, which can lead to a big delay in diagnosis. There is often confusion about who is best able to deal with the problem, and the lack of joined-up working between health services, education and mental health services needs to be addressed urgently. There are still many areas in this country with no designated person for autistic spectrum disorder advice and support, let alone a team. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, we need teachers in every school who have had training in recognising this disorder.
	Last week, I was disturbed to hear a senior forensic expert at Scotland Yard call for recording the DNA of children who may be at risk of falling into criminality. If that happened, I wonder how many children with an autistic spectrum disorder, who did not have educated and battling parents supporting them and demanding treatment and care, would be seen as just naughty, antisocial and unresponsive, and be marked as future criminals and recorded as such.
	Every area needs a clear strategy and varied facilities for children with ASD, as we have heard. We needed them 20 years ago, and they are still lacking. Finally, I wish to put in a plea for the many families, and mothers, in particular, who have a child with a severe form of autism. It often means family break up: the father leaves because he cannot stand the stress and siblings become difficult and often frightened. If I had time, I could relate many cases where that happened. Mothers face a lifelong commitment to a child, and subsequent adult, with whom they cannot communicate and for whom they can do very little to help. In concentrating on provision for autism, let us not neglect the rest of the family who need so much support.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend for inaugurating this debate. I join him in pressing the Government to take seriously an overall strategy for the whole of the United Kingdom. However, there are certain difficulties. It is generally quite helpful and illuminating to talk about people on the autistic spectrum, but there is a huge difference between those at the severe end and those at the milder end. Overall, in the United Kingdom, autistic people at the severe end are, up to a point, well looked after educationally in special schools or special units. It is those at the milder end—the Asperger's children—with whom I am particularly concerned, as they really suffer.
	We have often been told, especially by my noble friend Lord Rix, who is not in his place, not to muddle up mental illness and special educational needs. In general, I am sure that is good advice, but in the case of people suffering from Asperger's syndrome, the distinction may come to seem artificial. The special needs of the Asperger's child, while consisting of sometimes patchy and unequally distributed abilities, lie more crucially in the area of social and emotional intelligence. That child's inability to understand other people, their conventions, their jokes, their metaphors and, above all, physical contact with them makes his life in a mainstream school often little short of torment. In turn, that very often leads to severe depression, self-harm and general anxiety symptoms. When she replies, I would like the Minister to tell the House whether there is any progress on setting up small schools where an Asperger's child will be known to all the teachers and where he will know all the teachers and the other staff. I am convinced by all the schools that I have visited, which are many, that that is the only educational environment within which such children, often eccentric, often highly gifted, but living in a state of constant anxiety, can genuinely feel part of the school and included. I would also like to know whether there has been an increase in the number of special schools that specialise in this disability.
	Finally, I call your Lordships' attention the extreme difficulties that autistic spectrum adults find in getting treatment if they also suffer from depression or obsessive or anxious behaviour. They seem to fall between the responsibilities of the medical and the social services. Nowhere is co-operation between the services more badly needed.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and support his call for a national strategy. I declare my interest as a trustee of Autism Speaks UK, and I commend the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, about Dame Shirley. She is a unique champion. I am the mother of Shamim Uddin, and I have talked about him before. It is that experience that colours all my opinions on this matter. I should say how wonderful it is to perceive so much common ground across the Floor on this. We have been complementary to each other's arguments, which has made for a strong debate. I take this opportunity to commend the UN Secretary-General and the General Assembly for launching the first World Autism Awareness Day on the recommendation of Qatar, and I congratulate Qatar on leading it. I am confident that such events will be a further catalyst to changing some of the experiences of more than 60 million people with autism around the world, particularly the 500,000 or so people in the UK.
	I am like a broken record in that I want to restate what great strides we have made. It would be remiss of me not to commend the Prime Minister, Ed Balls and, of course, my noble friend Lord Adonis for their consistent attention and support on this issue. However, the fact remains that we have to acknowledge that, as has already been stated, huge disparity prevails in parents trying to access education, health, specialist speech therapy and respite care. There is some excellent provision, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned—TreeHouse is a fantastic example—but such facilities are few and far between. These benefit primarily children and in no way translate into provision for adults. After my last Question in the House, I was inundated with letters and e-mails explaining to me in detail how many parents are continuing to struggle with adult sons and daughters. Time does not permit me to acknowledge some of their experiences. However, I would like to acknowledge and reiterate my support for the efforts of Ivan and Charika Corea, the parents of 12 year-old Charin Corea, who launched the autism awareness campaign in 2000.
	I would like to see the Chinese wall dismantled where parents continue to suffer from disjointed services and a postcode lottery. This is nothing new, but we seriously need to address the inequality of provision, particularly for those over 18. Therefore I remain persistent in my call for an autism task force which will provide us with a better rationale for a 10-year strategic plan. On this occasion, I rest my case and ask my noble friend the Minister to say whether we can expect this from her and whether she supports the call for a national strategy.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I declare an interest as the father of an autistic daughter. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, that very much dictates my views on autism.
	I believe that more could be done at both a national and local level to help people with ASD and their families and carers. A strategy along the lines of the learning disability White Paper, Valuing People, would be a significant step in ensuring that people with autism receive the support that they need.
	I am concerned by new findings from the National Autistic Society. Its report, I Exist, showed that almost two-thirds of adults with autism do not have enough support to meet their needs. More than nine in 10 parents were worried about their adult son's or daughter's future when they are no longer able to support them. One of these parents, a mother of an adult daughter with autism, expressed her concern about the future by saying:
	"My daughter has quite calmly said that when we die, she plans to kill herself because she knows she will be completely alone and unable to care for herself. She weeps on a daily basis because she is so scared of the future. There is nobody to help her manage her daily life, and more importantly, who will love her when we're gone?".
	I am sure that we all feel for this family and for families like them. I hope we can also be united in our agreement that there is an urgent need for the Government to take action to help transform the lives of people such as these.
	We still do not know how many adults there are with autism in the UK as there have been no prevalence studies into the number of adults with autism. This lack of information has a negative impact on the planning of services. Seventy-seven per cent of primary care trusts do not keep a record of how many adults with autism there are in their area and 86 per cent of local authorities say that if they had more information about the number of adults with autism in their area it would help with long-term planning.
	I would be interested to hear from the noble Baroness whether the Government have carried out any research into the number of adults with autism. I would also like to hear how the Government intend to ensure that adults with autism are explicitly included in the joint strategic needs assessment that local authorities and primary care trusts are now required to produce.
	The NAS report highlighted the desire of local authorities and primary care trusts for assistance from the Government to help them to support adults with autism. I am pleased that the Government issued Better Services for People with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder in 2006. However, that publication only clarified how existing government policies applied to people with autism. It did not attempt to produce a coherent strategy to meet the needs of people with autism.
	Even after the publication of Better Services, 98 per cent of local authorities and 100 per cent of primary care trusts said that the Government could provide them with more guidance and assistance to support adults with autism. This near universal demand for more support highlights that the Better Services report is not in itself sufficient in tackling the social exclusion experienced by adults with autism.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Maginnis of Drumglass.
	The impact of having a child with autism is not understood by many, including professionals who are responsible for providing services for autistic children and their families. Parents are often blamed for failing to discipline a child when in fact they are doing their very best. Unthinking remarks made when parents are exhausted and at the end of their tether are extremely hurtful. Organising life around a severely autistic child who has no verbal communication, rarely sleeps and who has to be watched every moment is more than most of us could cope with. Parents of such children have my admiration and respect and deserve all the practical and emotional support that society can provide.
	Parents usually know what helps their child most. Often they are not listened to. There is a sub-group of autistic children who suffer extremely painful inflammatory bowel disease. Many children cannot express their pain in words, but parents know that their child is suffering dreadfully. Children who can explain their symptoms are often ignored. I have many letters from distraught parents who describe their experiences in doctors' surgeries and clinics. Some of these letters are so harrowing that I wonder how members of the medical profession can be so callous. It can take many months, or even years, for an accurate diagnosis to be given. Parents trail from doctor to doctor, here and in the USA, in an attempt to obtain relief for their sick child. Very often it is in the States that a diagnosis is made and medication prescribed.
	These children are sometimes difficult to examine and may wreak havoc in a surgery, but there is no excuse for a doctor's refusal to listen to a troubled and exhausted parent or to examine a child who is reported to be sick. I ask the Minister what advice she would give to parents who find themselves in this predicament. It should not be necessary for them to mortgage their homes or to borrow from relatives in order to go to the USA for definitive treatment.
	Some parents have found that their child's symptoms are relieved by dietary changes. Anecdotal evidence indicates that a gluten-free or a casein-free diet may be particularly helpful for some autistic children. However, it is expensive. Until the science catches up, is there any reason why gluten-free or casein-free foods should not be prescribed for children who are shown to benefit, as they are for coeliac patients?
	While provision for children with severe autism is far from perfect, there is a crevasse into which they fall when they reach adulthood, as other noble Lords have mentioned. There are very little, if any, social services or medical support, and respite care seems a distant dream. The whole family lives in the constant fear of what will happen if the parents die before the child. Society already marginalises them and few have a support network of friends and relations. There is an urgent need for structured provisions to be made to support autistic people throughout their lives and the lives of their parents on to their own demise.
	As we have already heard, change is an anathema to many autistic people. Time is necessary to enable them to build a relationship with a new person or group. They should be confident that the emotional, social and physical support does not disappear at crucial moments in their lives. We know that proper provision in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is progressing apace. Will the Minister tell the House what progress is being made in England?

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, for initiating this debate on autism services today.
	The shock of discovering that one has to deal with autism is all too often magnified by the sense of hopelessness that results from trying to deal with disparate and detached agencies. The Audit Commission reported five years ago on autism. That report stated:
	"We found: a lottery of provision, dependent on where people live, and how hard they can push for the services they need; too little being provided, too late, with long waits for information, equipment and treatment; a maze of services, that frustrates and confuses families; and pockets of good and innovative practice, and service champions".
	Little has changed, and that is why the current review being chaired by my colleague is so terribly important. One matter that I know he proposes, but obviously did not have time to speak about tonight, is his "one-stop shop" concept.
	Autism spectrum disorder can necessitate working with social security services, speech therapists, occupational therapists, paediatricians and psychiatrists. Doing all that and trying to cope, a parent may indeed have to give up work. There is all that to begin with, and then, depending on the degree of co-morbidity, there is liaising with other medical disciplines. Later there may be a similar need for additional liaising with others in the educational sector.
	Would the Government be sympathetic to a concept where local government would equip and provide six to 10 facilities with phones and computer terminals, where direct links could be established and co-ordinated with specialists and consultants who themselves may be scattered around clinics, hospitals and offices? This is a nightmare for any young mother. I have seen mothers having to trail around to social security offices where the young person at the desk has not even heard of autism. Voluntary groups could be contracted to man such centres, as could retired experts. There is a huge wealth of talent out there waiting and willing to be utilised. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, said that there is so much good will out there, willing to help and just wanting to be asked. That could happen in every town with a population of, say, 15,000 to 20,000, and could be established to meet local needs. It is essential to have a single point of refuge and help for families under this pressure, and such a facility could have a host of other multidisciplinary uses. Finally, would the Minister be willing to investigate how this could be set up and made to work for the benefit of the many?

Lord Addington: My Lords, we must thank the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for bringing this subject to our attention and hope that we can go into slightly more detail at some later point because, due to time, I am afraid that we are skating over the surface. I will take some of the background here as read, as other noble Lords have covered it. I will simply quote and paraphrase a small section from the policy summary on page 15 of Better Services for People with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder. It goes on about who is responsible for helping a person, asking:
	"Does the person have: An eligible need for support? A diagnosed, or undiagnosed, mental health need? (Mental health services should take financial responsibility)? A learning disability? (Learning disability services should take financial responsibility). A physical disability or sensory impairment? (Physical disability services should take financial responsibility)?".
	The silos that the noble Lord talked about here are brought beautifully forward. The next part says that they should pool the resources and pay for it. That is the administrative equivalent of water going uphill, and everyone here knows it. Everyone here knows that organisations defend their budgets. We would like to hear how big a stick the Government are going to take to these organisations, because there does not seem to be a carrot in the world that will make them do it.
	Moving on to the National Autistic Society's document I Exist, I will go back to the examples that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, spoke about. Ninety-eight per cent of local authorities and 100 per cent of primary care trusts said that they needed more guidance. Let us go through that again. We shall take the call for extra funding as read in both cases. Some 81 per cent of local services wanted more training and professional development—75 per cent of the primacy care trusts. Of primary care trusts, 88 per cent want specific guidance. It is only 64 per cent for local authorities.
	It is clear that those bodies that have to administer this system do not think that they have the tools available. Can the Government give us some description of what they are doing to bring these bodies together? If the Celtic fringe has an example of better practice, when are we going to implement it? The most depressing part of this is the incredible similarities between the struggle to get the right help to the right people in this group—those with autistic spectrum disorder—and every other description that I have heard about any group with a disability. It is the same every time social services come to dyslexia, which of course is the one that I know best, although the conditions are almost diametrically opposed in some aspects. The administrative chase is almost the same. Have the Government not learned enough to be able to avoid that at least?

Earl Howe: My Lords, let me say immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that I have very considerable sympathy for his case. We are dealing here with a condition—autism—on which the corpus of knowledge remains exceedingly slim. That very basic point argues, in my book, for a sharing of best practice and a joined-up approach to policy-making, based on the best available evidence. This is not to question devolution; it is to highlight the need for strategic consistency in an area where services are patchy and the cost to the nation enormous.
	Policy-making on services for autistic people straddles departmental boundaries. It straddles the boundaries between government and the voluntary sector—let us remember that much of the voluntary sector operates UK-wide—and between different local authorities. I pay tribute to the Government in what they have done to pull together the various strands of policy and good practice in this area. In November 2006, the Department of Health published Better Services for People with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder, which encourages those in the health and social care fields to develop local action plans to meet the needs of older children and adults with autism. There are other initiatives too, at a national level, which we can applaud: good practice guidance, the inclusion development programme and transition support for the over-16s.
	Local priority-setting based on guidance is right. The question that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is asking is whether, on a matter like autism, it is enough. In January, he asked the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, whether the Government would support the Celtic Nations Autism Partnership, which is trying to create a joined-up approach to service provision across administrative boundaries. The answer that he got was that:
	"If there are lessons that we can learn for practice in England, we will do so".—[Official Report, 16/1/08; col. 1293.]
	Again, that is fine, but it slightly misses the point, which is not simply whether England has something to learn from the devolved Administrations, but whether we can usefully share our own knowledge and best practice with them.
	The "I Exist" campaign by the National Autistic Society is based on the finding that nearly two-thirds of adults with autism in England do not have enough support to meet their needs. Some 76 per cent of teachers said that the lack of appropriate professional development is a barrier to teaching children with ASD. These are the sorts of reasons why TreeHouse and the Autism Awareness Campaign run by Ivan and Charika Corea have campaigned so vocally for the kind of strategic approach that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is asking for. The big question for the Government is whether the collaborative joined-up way of working, which they urge on others, is something that they themselves are willing to embrace at a national level. I hope that the Minister will treat the idea seriously.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for initiating this debate and other noble Lords and Baronesses for their contributions.
	Autism is devastating, leaving autistic people isolated and their families afraid for their future, and it is a condition about which not enough is understood. I know that this fact will be highlighted on World Autism Awareness Day on 2 April. My noble friend Baroness Uddin, among others, has been active in campaigning for the Government to take even more action, urging us to consider a national strategy and taskforce.
	One point I think that we can all agree, and it has been eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is that early diagnosis and early intervention is increasingly being recognised as very important for improving the outcomes for children and into later life. I learnt this, in particular, when I worked for ICAN, the organisation that works for children with communication disabilities, including autism.
	Mentioning all the considerable work that is going on and answering all the questions raised in the debate will be difficult, but I shall do my best and write to noble Lords if necessary.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, and others mentioned early years. The 2002 guidance includes pointers to good practice on early years. The special educational needs code of practice promotes early intervention. Under the Education Act 1996, local authorities can make provision for children up to their second birthday and, where necessary, must assess and draw up special educational needs statements for children from that birthday onwards.
	The Early Support programme is the central government mechanism for improving the consistency and co-ordination of services for young disabled children and their families across England at national, regional and local level. Included in the information that Early Support makes available to parents is information for the parents of children who have just been diagnosed with autism or who are being diagnosed. The autism information booklet for parents was drawn up with the National Autistic Society and TreeHouse. It has been revised again in consultation with NAS and TreeHouse. According to the latest figure that we have, more than 75,000 copies have been distributed. The joint National Health Service and DCSF exemplar sets out what should happen in early years, describes what joined-up support should be necessary and takes us on the journey that a child and their family should follow.
	The DCSF is providing £200,000 over three years to the National Autistic Society to help parents whose children have recently been diagnosed with autism, so that NAS can offer one-day as well as six-session courses. The NAS has found that people from rural areas—for example, fathers—have found it difficult to attend the six-session courses. The programmes provide parents with an overview of autistic spectrum disorders; strategies on improving communication; guidance on educational rights and access to services and benefits.
	As my noble friend Lady Gale explained, work is certainly afoot in Wales and the Celtic nations. We welcome the opportunity to be involved in the consultation on the strategy being taken forward by the Welsh Assembly. I have stated that we are in discussion with Welsh Assembly officials and will monitor closely the implementation of the strategy to see what lessons may be learnt. England and the devolved Administrations are involved in the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. The group has a chance to discuss autism provision at the European agency level.
	I turn to services for children with ASD. The Department for Children, Schools and Families has a well established programme to improve teachers' skills in meeting children's special educational needs, including those with autism, and we are working with partners to bring about improvements—there is no doubt that that is necessary. In November last year, Ministers launched the Autism Education Trust, which is being established by the National Autistic Society, the TreeHouse Trust and the Council for Disabled Children. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has been closely involved with TreeHouse. The DCSF has given the Autism Education Trust £160,000 in the current financial year to help it become established. The trust aims to involve all those from the voluntary, independent and statutory sectors who have an interest in autism education and to promote improvements in it.
	Children with autism and their families will also benefit from more than £430 million of funding for the Aiming High for Disabled Children Programme. In particular, it should bring about improvements to the provision of short breaks and the transition support programme mentioned by several noble Lords.
	Moreover, this Government are committed to independent living for all disabled adults, including those with autism. Independent living is an important part of enabling disabled people to attain equality and social inclusion, to fulfil the roles and responsibilities of citizenship and to have choice and control over the way they live their lives.
	The Office for Disability Issues launched a cross-government independent living strategy on 3 March. The aim of the five-year strategy is for disabled people, including adults with autism, who need support in going about their daily lives to have greater choice and control over how the support is provided. It aims for disabled adults to have greater access to housing, education, employment, leisure and transport opportunities, and to participation in communal and family life.
	In 2006, the Department of Health published Better Services for People with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder, which improves guidance and points to better provision for adults with autism. I am delighted to say that the department's specialist adviser on autism, Sarah Austin, will be one of the advisers on the beacon scheme on independent living for disabled adults. I am pleased that she is also working with the department to produce guidance for professionals who commission services for adults with ASDs. This will be published in the coming months. It is important to remember that commissioners in mainstream services have a role in this.
	Research was mentioned. I am pleased to report that the Autism Research Co-ordination Group's first annual report states that autism research funding should be focused on identifying the gaps around biomedical research, interventions in research—especially in adults—quality of life and economic impact.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, raised universal screening. The national autism plan for children drawn up by the Royal Colleges of Psychiatrists and of Paediatrics and Child Health did not recommend universal screening, because, at the time of writing it, they felt that screening instruments were not precise enough.
	The noble Lord quite properly raised teacher training. We have a programme to improve teachers' and early-years providers' skills in meeting children's special educational needs, including those with autism. We are working with partners to bring about improvements. The next phase of this programme, beginning in April, will focus on ASD.
	The noble Lord also asked how many specialists there are. We do not collect the data centrally, but there should be a multidisciplinary team in every locality with an expertise on autism, including Asperger's, as was recommended in the autism exemplar to which I have already referred.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, referred to the closure of specialist schools. Decisions on closures are made locally and not by central government. Closures need to be balanced by the opening of other units or provision. During the last few years, 18,000 children have been in such provision, receiving behavioural, emotional and other support. Autism is a significant part of this provision.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, mentioned children with Asperger's and whether there are enough local schools. As she will know, it is up to local authorities and voluntary and independent groups to decide on new provision for children with autism. Guidance last year encouraged local authorities to develop a range of provisions to meet the range of children with disorders. The Autistic Spectrum Disorders—Good Practice Guidance also recommends this range of provision.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked what happens to adults on the ASD spectrum. He quite rightly raises the need for greater co-ordination locally and the problems of transition. There is no doubt that more work needs to be done and more pressure brought to make sure that there is greater uniformity of provision.
	This debate would not be complete were I not to mention some of the organisations who work so hard for autistic children and adults. The National Autistic Society recently launched its adult campaign, "I exist", and Ivan Lewis, Minister for Care Services, spoke at the launch. In researching this debate I read the study of the economic impact of autism kindly sent to me by Dame Steve Shirley, whose support for research is both remarkable and far-sighted. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley and Lady Uddin, on that. The Government welcome the report on the economic consequences of autism in the UK as a useful contribution to the body of knowledge. I had the privilege of visiting the TreeHouse school last year and pay tribute to its pioneering work, both for the children in the school and across the piece as a national champion. I would certainly like to receive the review of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and will make sure that it goes to the right places for consideration.
	I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords of this Government's continued commitment to improve the response that autistic children, adults and their families receive. There is much more to do—of course there is. We all need to continue to strive to deliver a modern, responsive social care and education system that supports people with autism and to make sure that they have greater choice and control in their lives, greater empowerment and the ability to lead fulfilling lives.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.44 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.40 to 8.44 pm.]

Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Clause 29 [Inspection plans]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 45:
	Clause 29, page 14, line 15, leave out "Where" and insert "Before"

Lord Bach: My Lords, Clause 29 will play an essential role in encouraging a more co-ordinated, strategic and consistent approach to local authority inspection of multi-site businesses. Inspection plans will present a primary authority with the opportunity to share with all other local authorities its strategic knowledge of the businesses with which it has a partnership. It is our expectation that primary authorities will be experts in the operation of the businesses that they partner and in particular will have detailed knowledge of compliance and quality assurance processes.
	A primary authority will know those areas where a business presents a low risk, where it has a strong record of compliance, where it has improvements in hand and where improvement is needed. To give a primary authority an evidence base to develop this expertise, we believe that when an enforcing authority departs from the recommendations in an inspection plan it must inform the primary authority of this departure and give reasons for it.
	It was said in Committee:
	"If businesses and primary authorities are to go to the expense of drawing up agreed inspection plans, it is not reasonable for local enforcing authorities to be able to disregard those plans without having to justify that".—[Official Report, 28/1/08; col. GC 256.]
	We agree with that and understand that businesses in particular will expect that they should not be subject to arbitrary inspections based on spurious grounds when an inspection plan has been drawn up. With this in mind, we believe that it is more appropriate for local authorities to notify the relevant primary authority when they depart from the recommendations in an inspection plan before the inspection is carried out. That is what Amendment No. 45 will do. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord De Mauley: moved Amendment No. 46:
	Clause 29, page 14, line 15, leave out "exercises" and insert "proposes to exercise"

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 aim to ensure, without excessively eroding the powers of local authorities, that the primary authority is useful and effective and that multi-site businesses are keen to enter into such arrangements. Government Amendment No. 45 is very welcome and goes some way towards satisfying us, but it does not explain what happens next. Under the Bill as drafted, a primary authority and the business for which it is the primary authority will draw up an agreed inspection plan relevant to the company. This is intended to be a painstaking activity that goes to the heart of the business and its operations. It will take time, effort and resources on both sides—business and the authority. The plan will then have to be agreed with the LBRO and be brought to the attention of local authorities, which will be obliged to have regard to it.
	It is in the event of a disagreement with this plan by a local enforcing authority that the problem arises. As drafted, even following government Amendment No. 45, the Bill means that the local authority will need to notify the primary authority before it undertakes an inspection outside the terms of the plan and to give its reasons for doing so. But that is the end of the matter. If the plan can simply be ignored, or if that is the perception, our contention is that that will undermine the value of drawing up the plan in the first place. The odd thing about how the Bill is drafted is that this is in contrast to what happens when a local enforcing authority wishes to take enforcement action against a business. In that event—and perhaps the Minister can confirm this—it must notify the primary authority and the primary authority can direct it not to take the action if it is inconsistent with advice that it has previously given the business, subject to appeal to the LBRO.
	So we have a situation where the primary authority cannot veto the inspection but can then veto any enforcement action that arises as a consequence, thus rendering the inspection a waste of both the local authority's and the business's time. Even more than that, it might be argued that an inspection plan, agreed with a business, constitutes advice to the business on its procedures and that the primary authority has an obligation to reject any proposed enforcement action taken following rejection of the advice in the inspection plan. We have to remember that an inspection plan is about regular inspections. It is not about an inspection that is to follow up a specific complaint or suspicion of an offence having been committed. That is an enforcement activity over which the primary authority actually has a veto. In any event, the inspection plan could make provision for such one-off inspections and there is no reason to believe that a professional primary authority would reject a proposal for an inspection outside the plan if there were good reason for it. That is not the point.
	What we want to deal with is the situation where a local authority is, for no good reason, simply disregarding a plan that every other authority is going along with. Our amendment is an attempt to bring these procedures into harmony and to enhance the workability and effectiveness of the whole primary authority principle. It would do so without undermining the ultimate authority of the local enforcing authority. That local enforcing authority would advise the primary authority of its desire to conduct an inspection outside the plan in advance. The primary authority could agree, as it may well do if the reasons are satisfactory, or it could disagree, with reasons, and ask the local authority to review its decision. The local authority could decide not to go ahead or it could decide to go ahead. In the latter case, it would have to advise the primary authority, which might then suggest that it agrees to let the LBRO arbitrate. A local authority that is certain could agree but, at the end of the day, it could still go ahead if it insisted. We do not envisage that this would be a long drawn-out process. Rather it should be a matter of days with a streamlined procedure. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and I have largely the same intentions in our amendments. We are both trying to facilitate discussions between enforcing authorities and primary authorities before an inspection takes place; to give primary authorities the opportunity to share with enforcing authorities their knowledge and expertise; to give primary authorities the opportunity to inform the approach taken by an enforcing authority to an inspection; and to allow primary authorities to demonstrate, where appropriate, that an inspection is just unnecessary.
	We do not think that primary authorities should be required to consent to inspections proposed by an enforcing authority, because inspections can be triggered by a wide range of factors, including a complaint that must be followed up and recurring management failings within an outlet that must be addressed. We do not think that an inspection plan can take into account all these factors. If an enforcing authority has to seek the consent of the relevant primary authority before undertaking an inspection, the result will be a deluge of notifications to the primary authority, bogging down the primary authority's system as a whole and preventing quick inspections when these are needed. To avoid this outcome, primary authorities would naturally be likely never, or very rarely, to contest proposed inspections. Primary authorities would also draw up high-level inspection plans hedged with so many caveats as to render them meaningless. We do not think that disengagement between a primary authority and an enforcing authority would benefit anyone, particularly not businesses.
	The noble Lord asked why there are different provisions for inspection and enforcement. Inspection is a different animal from enforcement. It imposes far fewer burdens on the business than an enforcement action does and we think that it would be disproportionate to require anything more than informing the primary authority. We do not think that consent is necessary. We fear that, although these are well intentioned amendments, their tendency would be to undermine the expected benefits of inspection plans. For that reason, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw them.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I think that my case stands and I am not entirely convinced by the Minister's response, as he will not be surprised to hear. But in view of the hour, I will not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]

Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 48:
	After Clause 33, insert the following new Clause—
	"Conduct of local authority functions
	Notwithstanding any provision of this Part, each local authority shall carry out its relevant functions in a fair and even-handed way with respect to all those carrying out regulated activities within its area."

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this returns to the problem of the patchwork created by the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, in one of his visits to the Grand Committee, agreed that the patchwork has changed. Until this legislation, there was a patchwork effect across the branches of large organisations. Branches in different towns might be subject to different regimes from the different local authorities. Now all that is to end by statute as the agreements are put in place. The patchwork will be along the high street or within the trading estate, if noble Lords see what I mean. Different local authorities will ultimately be the primary authorities for different businesses spread around the trading estate or high street. The regulations can potentially be enforced differently.
	As I said earlier, much of this is going on voluntarily at the moment. The Bill would put that aspect into statutory form. But statutory form is very different from voluntary form because of the compulsion involved and because the courts may get involved in arbitrating and making decisions about how the provision works, looking back to the legislation that we are passing. My new clause would ensure that, if a number of shops in a high street were being regulated in a particular way as a result of primary agreements elsewhere, a different, more rigorous regime could not be imposed on the independents to the detriment of their trading position. Each local authority should carry out its relevant functions in an even-handed way with respect to all those carrying out the regulated activities within each area—not only those regulated through the primary authority system, but the others.
	I have referred to this point on a number of occasions both today and in Grand Committee. This is an attempt to place a legal constraint on the way in which local authorities exercise their functions so that, if a small business feels that it is being discriminated against on this basis, it will have the opportunity to appeal and say, "It's not fair. The big businesses either side of me are not being regulated as toughly as I am".
	In moving this amendment, I am conscious that, from time to time, electoral pressures are very great on local authorities. For reasons that are often but not always good, there is pressure on the regulators to produce results that show that the public are being protected. The only people whom they can lean on once this is in statutory form are the independent businesses. Those are the people whom I am worried about and this new clause would prevent that from happening. I beg to move.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I support my noble friend's important amendment, which stipulates the need for fair jurisdiction in light of the primary authority partnership principle proposed by the Bill. I will not repeat the debates voicing the many concerns over the primary authority partnership that dominated so much of our time in Grand Committee, but I reiterate the nervousness on these Benches that the primary authority principle may lead to unfair or prejudiced treatment against smaller, especially single-site, businesses. The Minister will, I am sure, assure us that we need not worry about that, but the insertion of this clause would provide an even better assurance.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, I support the insertion of this new clause. There are five requirements for better regulation, which include proportionality and targeting. Proportionality is obviously enormously important. Targeting is more worrying. The Minister will be aware that targeting over the past 10 years has in some areas got a bad name for the unintended consequences that it has produced. As my noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lord Cope said, pressures can sometimes be brought to bear. There can be political pressures to try to achieve one thing over another. This is a salutary reminder that, if the Bill goes through as drafted, immense powers will be given to probably tens of thousands of officials in local authorities and regulatory authorities up and down the country. The importance of even-handedness can hardly be overemphasised.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has made clear since Second Reading his concern to ensure that the Bill does not work against the interests of independent businesses and, sometimes, smaller businesses. I am confident that, far from doing so, the Bill will bring better and more consistent standards of enforcement for all businesses. We know that local authorities are under a duty to have regard to the principles of good regulation, under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act. Clause 5 of this Bill would require that LBRO works to ensure that local authorities carry out their regulatory activities in the same way.
	Part 2 will work to bring greater consistency to the treatment of businesses operating across more than one local authority. Consistency in other respects is also important, not least consistency between businesses. Promoting consistency between businesses, in this sense, will be just as much a part of LBRO's work. Its power of giving guidance to which local authorities must have regard will be its most effective tool in this instance. The primary authority scheme will not interfere with those areas where local discretion is necessary. It will promote consistency in areas where there is simply no good reason why standards should not be the same across the country.
	Businesses have spoken to us about the very substantial costs they face where standards differ. In such cases as the brand name on a line of clothing, a method of preparing rice for cooking, or the kind of footwear necessary for staff working in a specific type of warehouse, an approach that was unproblematic from the home authority's point of view was challenged elsewhere. There is no good reason why, in cases like these, standards that are acceptable in one part of the country should not be equally acceptable in another. That is why businesses, including the Federation of Small Businesses, so overwhelmingly support the aims of the Bill.
	The main issue put to us by smaller businesses during the consultation was not that they disliked the primary authority scheme in principle. In fact, many smaller businesses operating over a handful of local authorities, face problems of consistency themselves, and will benefit from it directly. Their concern was that local authority resources would be diverted away from them. We included a cost-recovery clause in the Bill, which we believe has removed that risk completely.
	The Bill foresees, and deals in paragraph 7 of Schedule 4, with the risk that enforcement practice may diverge between businesses as primary authorities give subtly different advice on compliance by conferring on LBRO the right to give guidance and, if need be, directions relating to specific actions which have been subject to arbitration. That is, lessons learnt from particular arbitration cases can be disseminated more widely to all businesses and local authorities if necessary.
	The noble Lord and others who have spoken are concerned that local authorities must be even-handed. I ask the House to remember that local authorities are under a duty to be proportionate under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) Order 2007. We referred to levels of inspection for independent and multi-site businesses. The accusation is that inspection plans will somehow give multi-site businesses an unfair advantage. The inspection plans will not mean that multi-site businesses will somehow get less inspection; they mean that their inspection will be focused on known strategic problems for that business. We believe that they will improve the level of service that local authority enforcers will be able to give their communities just by improving the information available to inspectors.
	Finally, on the "patchwork" issue that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is concerned about, there will be different standards in some areas, but we do not think that that will affect matters which really count for local people. In fact, the residents of local authorities everywhere will benefit from much better intelligence-sharing between councils, which will focus the energies of their local authority enforcement officers on the important issues associated with multi-site firms. If need be, the powers of direction in Schedule 4 will allow the LBRO to bring more consistency between and within businesses. We do not believe that the extremely well meaning amendment of the noble Lord is necessary because of the way in which this system will work.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lord has confirmed what I said at the start of our debates this afternoon—that this office is the national office for regulating local government regulators. I shall not pursue that.
	This new clause is intended to be a safety net for smaller businesses, as was recognised in the debate, because I am conscious from my experience in Parliament and in government that, due to the law of unintended consequences, the way in which things work out in practice is not always what was intended by the legislators at the time. But the Minister conceded earlier that, as there is to be a review before long so that we can see how this is all working, the unintended consequences can be considered at that time, if they exist and if my fears are realised. In the light of that, I will not press this safety-net clause at this time and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 35 [Power to make orders providing for civil sanctions]:

Lord Lyell of Markyate: moved Amendment No. 49:
	Clause 35, page 15, line 29, leave out paragraph (a)

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name—Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 52, 55, 60 and 63.
	Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 remove the power of regulators by themselves to impose fixed and variable penalties. Amendment No. 52 removes the exclusion of the normal prosecuting authorities—the CPS, the police and their Scottish and Northern Ireland equivalents—from their normal prosecuting functions. In other words, the aim of my amendments is largely to keep the present system going and only to amend it where it produces improvements, rather than an oppressive effect. Amendments Nos. 55, 60 and 63 continue the process by removing Clauses 38, 39 and part—I emphasise, part—of Clause 41, which provide for statutory instruments to lay down the detailed operation of fixed and variable monetary penalty procedures. I invite the Minister, who I, too, welcome to her place, to note that I have carefully not removed from Clause 41 the power to make stop orders and reparation orders—in other words, restorative justice orders because I can see the benefit of those and I have kept them in the clause.
	The overall objective of these amendments is not to destroy the Bill, as has occasionally been feared, nor to damage in any way the existing regulatory system. I recognise that we need fair and carefully thought-out systems of regulation. The objective is to prevent the ousting of the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, which provide one of the most important checks and balances in our free society and which are not adequately replaced by an end-of-the-line right to appeal to a specialist or non-specialist tribunal. The Bill, as drafted by the Government, potentially makes every regulator and every public official in every local authority, effectively not just the regulator, but the investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and sentencer in his or her own cause, subject only to that ultimate right of appeal, supposedly to a first-tier tribunal. There may be other problems with the appeals procedure, which we will deal with in later amendments.
	The idea mentioned by Professor McCrory is that this should be a specialist tribunal. Whether this will turn out to be the case in practice, given the huge diversity of subjects, is questionable when one remembers that the Bill covers something like 178 different statutes, plus all the statutory instruments that come under them, as set out in Schedules 6 and 7 to the Bill. This is a huge constitutional inroad into the liberties of tens of thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of citizens who, in one way or another, will find aspects of their lives increasingly subject to regulation. If we were to count how many things we do that are regulated in one form or another, most of which we carry pretty lightly, and then think of all the regulations covering people who in ordinary life serve us in one way or another—whether they be hauliers, waste disposers, people in hospitals, people who manufacture drugs or gardening products, all the farming industry and so on—it is necessarily a very broad subject and these are immense powers. It is not just me who says this. Both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, have warned of the unprecedented effects of this Bill.
	Last July, on taking office, the Prime Minister told the other place that the Government intended to return the control of executive powers to Parliament. This goes in the opposite direction, because it takes away from the ordinary courts the right and duty to dispense justice and it gives it, subject only to that right of appeal, to public officials. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its second report of the 2007-08 session, says in paragraph 34 on page 10:
	"This Bill, among other things, enables subordinate legislation to prescribe, to an unprecedented extent, sanctions which may be imposed on those considered to have committed offences under a range of Acts or under subordinate legislation".
	Paragraph 48 states:
	"The purpose of Part 3 of the Bill is to enable Ministers of the Crown to confer on regulators power to impose sanctions as an alternative to prosecuting the offender through the criminal courts ... The Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the others specified in Clause 35(3) are excluded. So in practice this second category will comprise largely local authorities and Ministers".
	The Government argue that there are examples where this has happened before—and there are examples, but on nothing like this scale. If one takes the VAT authorities, the tribunal system is well established. The Financial Services Authority has similar powers and, at the other end of the scale, if you are appealing against a parking ticket, which is a civil penalty, you can go to the parking authority tribunal, or whatever its name is. But what is being done here is very different. With regard to VAT tribunals, the chambers I was in for many years, and from which I am now retired, has many barristers who are experts in this field. This is an extraordinarily complex and detailed area, and only a thoroughly expert tribunal is suited to dealing with it. It would be impossible to deal with it sensibly before magistrates or the Crown Court without making special provisions effectively for a special court. A lot of that applies to the FSA as well.
	Parking regulations are utterly different. They are simply penalties in circumstances where one knows pretty well whether one is guilty. Most people accept their guilt, but in quite a large number of cases, if there has been a mistake, the decisions are turned over by the tribunals. One occasionally gets rather cross when they are not overturned but it is not a big deal for the citizen and it is perfectly acceptable.
	Unfortunately, as I shall explain in a moment, in this area we are dealing with substantial penalties, even under the fixed monetary penalty system. They can be up to the magistrates' court maximum, which I think is currently £5,000, and a penalty of half that amount can damage the lives of a large number of citizens. Then there are variable monetary penalties. I sympathise with Professor McCrory in that people who have committed very serious offences should be punished proportionately and the punishments may have to be very large fines, but if those fines are dished out by an official and are subject only to an appeal, that is not satisfactory.
	The Bill was very much led by substantial business, although it is supported in many ways by small business. However, I think that sometimes the small business report gets over-enthusiastic about King Stork and is over-critical of what might be seen as King Log. Other noble Lords will remember the moral of La Fontaine's whatever it was called.
	The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee warns in paragraph 49 that:
	"The scheme under Part 3 must be distinguished from the two types of 'civil sanctions' scheme which are more commonly to be found in existing legislation".
	I invite Ministers to think very carefully about whether they could go down that route—particularly the first type of civil sanction, which is,
	"the system under which the offender is given the option of paying a fixed penalty as an alternative to being prosecuted and being heard in the criminal courts, but under which he may always choose to proceed to the criminal courts (e.g. selling alcohol to children)".
	The Minister may tell me that that can be done under this Bill, but there is a very big difference. It is one thing to settle with a regulator for a penalty which you agree, knowing that if you do not settle you will go before the court and the court will fix the penalty after a hearing. At the hearing it will see what sort of person you are and will make a decision based on the extent of your guilt, your means, your general circumstances and your health and so on, and will decide what is a fair and proportionate penalty. The alternative is to settle with the regulator, who has the complete whip hand. If it is a fixed penalty, he will impose the penalty that he has been told he can give.
	In Grand Committee, I asked the Minister several times how much these penalties would be. The answer was, "Well, we haven't really worked it out yet". That is not very good when the Bill has been before Parliament for some months and it is coming up to a parliamentary year since McCrory's crucial question.
	I welcome—we will come to this in a moment—the fact that the Government have decided to get rid of the criteria method of judging a penalty. I always thought that that might be difficult. Finding a one-size or two-size-fits-all system—or will it somehow be a four-size-fits-all system?—will be very rough and ready. If the size does not seem fair to you, you will have to spend a lot of time and money going to a tribunal. What is more, the regulator has the whip hand because they have set the penalty.
	The regulator has to ask what the court, for example, will give to a lorry driver who has strayed into a waste disposal area and has been caught. He probably has a lorry which does not have a massive value but it is his livelihood and, anyway, he may be up to his eyes in debt. He seems to the court basically to be a decent bloke and it will give a proportionate penalty—but the regulator will not because he does not have that discretion. We have a pretty rough-and-ready and over-tough system.
	The Select Committee on the Constitution made similar points in its first report of 2007-08. Paragraph 9 says in heavy type:
	"The scheme envisaged in the bill will enable the transfer, on an unprecedented scale, of responsibilities for deciding guilt and imposing financial sanctions (with no upper limit) away from independent and impartial judges to officials".
	At the beginning of paragraph 9, the Committee said that,
	"An element of the core meaning of the rule of law is, in the words of A.V. Dicey"—
	the great constitutional lawyer on whom we were all brought up—
	"'that no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land. In this sense the rule of law is contrasted with every system of government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary, or discretionary powers of constraint'".
	Wide, arbitrary and discretionary powers of constraint are being given to regulators under the Bill. They may blench a bit at "arbitrary", but they are still pretty arbitrary given that they cannot even decide on the amount for a fixed monetary penalty.
	The Committee continued,
	"Although many aspects of Dicey's account of the rule of law"—
	remember that this is the Select Committee on the Constitution, which is an all-party Committee of this House—
	"are now contested, this passage in our view continues to provide a powerful reminder of the importance of the role of ordinary courts, rather than the executive, in dispensing justice and punishment".
	It also raises the question of whether the Bill is compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I have a very important question to the Minister, of which I gave notice to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, an hour or two ago: on whom is the burden of proof going to lie before these tribunals? Will it be on the alleged defaulter to prove that the regulator was wrong, or on the regulator, in a case that starts again from the beginning, to establish guilt and then leave it entirely to the tribunal to fix whatever level of penalty is proportionate? I seriously want to know the answer to that. The Minister may find it difficult to answer tonight, but could we please have it in very good time before Third Reading?
	If the burden of proof is reversed, I strongly suspect that, although the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg will accept such a scheme in some areas like this—it almost certainly accepts VAT tribunals, the FSA and that sort of thing—there is a very serious question whether it is Strasbourg-compliant. It is worth remembering that even if it is Strasbourg-compliant, it is a serious attack on our own United Kingdom rights.
	I will read Article 6 because, like most of the convention, it is based on what in 1950 was the United Kingdom view of fundamental human rights. It reads:
	"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
	It is the determination by the tribunal; it is not the determination by an official, subsequently brought to the tribunal. That is exactly what this Government are taking away from our citizens. We and they can now be found guilty by an official who is, as I have said, prosecutor, judge, jury and sentencer. Yes, we can appeal to a tribunal but this is a much greater burden on the citizen and a huge advantage to the regulator.
	The Government believe that it is much more user-friendly to go to a tribunal. Going to a court on a criminal matter is, up to a point, a frightening thing. One can see that for a large business there may be considerable advantages in going to a tribunal on a civil matter, where, if there is a fine, you can pay it but it does not come through as a criminal conviction. But for a small business or an individual, the amount of money is what matters, as much as the opprobrium. It is said that businesses do not like the opprobrium of being found to have traded in bad meat or something like that, but if they have traded in bad meat they deserve some opprobrium. In Committee, I asked what would be done about that and apparently the Government will say that the regulators must post it on a website or somewhere, but I doubt that will have the same effect as coming before the courts of Hemel Hempstead.
	My main point is that this Bill as drafted can be handled by substantial businesses who have lawyers and people who can write eloquent letters; they can cope with it as part of the business process. That is one of the reasons why the better regulation aspects are a very good idea. I think they will improve regulation. However, here we have supposed civil penalties in areas of criminality.
	How will it work in practice? I apologise for speaking at some length, but this is a very important subject. How many cases are we talking about? I am sorry to say that the Government do not really know. I turn to McCrory's final report. I have every respect for Professor McCrory, whose reports are very balanced. Although they recommend the system that the Government are putting in, they do not go for it categorically; they make very sensible recommendations for improving the ordinary court system, by training, by the Judicial Studies Board and so on. We know that there will be a lot of training if ever proper tribunals get going. McCrory's final report says, on page 40, that, in 2004, 15,445 cases were prosecuted, of which 15,369 were in the magistrates' court, which leaves just 76 for the Crown Court. Those figures are to be found in nothing more magnificent than footnote 39 and they are said to come from the Courts Service. Yet page 17 of the same document, quoting figures from CIPFA—I can never remember what CIPFA stands for but it is immensely respected and provides statistics for all local authority matters—gives a total not of 15,000 but of 24,533 cases, plus another 11,704 for the environmental health—formal cautions and court summonses. The total is about 36,000 cases.
	The Minister told me in a helpful letter of 20 February 2008, for which I am most grateful—I cannot speak too highly of the noble Lord, Lord Bach's courtesy and co-operation in handling the Bill—that these were supposedly for different periods, but I have looked carefully at the document and it is far from clear that they are for different periods. Even if they were for different years—say, one was for 2004 and one was for 2005—it is very unlikely that there will be a 150 per cent difference in the number of prosecutions; 15,000 to 36,000. What is more, the 15,000 figure is pretty unlikely when one discovers at another point in McCrory—I do not know whether the Minister knows this and I would ask him how many regulators there are—that there are 13,500 regulators. I think those are national regulators; I do not think that they are local authority regulators. If 13,500 regulators are only producing 15,000 prosecutions, it is a bit odd. I do not think that the Government have a grip on the figures.
	Furthermore, the higher figures that I have quoted, the 36,000, only cover about one-third of the 28 regulators that are to be found in Schedule 5. I do not know why they are there, but 10 of the regulators to be found in Schedule 5 do not prosecute at all. I got all those figures from a series of Parliamentary Questions, as I said to Grand Committee, so I assume that the answers are correct.
	How many cases does the Minister anticipate when all 178 statutes in Schedules 6 and 7, or at least the great bulk of them, have been brought into the scheme? What proportion is going to be dealt with by administrative penalties and what proportion will continue to be prosecuted in the criminal courts and which will be chosen for which treatment? I cannot give the page reference, but I do not think that McCrory is keen on hybrid systems. The Government's proposal seems to be a hybrid system. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his letter of 20 February and his attempts to answer my questions, but some of them do not seem to be accurate. Much of the policy seems to be unclear and some of it seems to be self-contradictory.
	Will the Minister give us answers to the following questions either today or in good time before Third Reading? First, how many cases have been prosecuted by regulators in the magistrates' courts and Crown Courts in each of the past three years for which figures are available? I suggest that she tries to go a little wider than the Courts Service, whose figures do not seem to have been terribly reliable. Secondly, what proportion of those cases is it the Government's intention to hive off to the proposed system of penalty imposed by officials and subject only to appeal by a tribunal?
	Thirdly, what principle will be followed in making that decision? For example, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, told me in the letter of 20 February, which is in the Library, that approximately 9,000 of the 15,000 cases that he believed had been prosecuted would be handed to officials, and the other 6,000 would continue to be prosecuted before the courts and that the 6,000 would be what he described as the more egregious cases.
	Egregious is one of those words the meaning of which instantly leaps to the mind of every noble Lord. It has been sticking out from the flock. It must mean that they are the more serious of those cases. My understanding is that the variable monetary penalty system is provided in order to prosecute the more serious cases, but if they are to go off to the Crown Court, why do we need the variable monetary penalty system? What is the basis for the Government's argument that officials should be given powers to impose unlimited penalties?
	Will the Minister tell the House what evidence exists that there is a genuine serious compliance deficit? That word has been bouncing around the Committee and discussions of this Bill as though Britain was somehow in anguish with a compliance deficit. However, Professor McCrory says in his final report that he believes that in many sectors compliance levels in the United Kingdom are generally high. Could the Minister identify before Third Reading in which sectors compliance is said to be generally high and in which it is not? He went on to say—presumably with regard to the areas in which it is not so high—that it is difficult to assess the general level of compliance in the United Kingdom because not every firm is inspected. God help us if that were so.
	Professor McCrory goes on to say that tangible data in this area of compliance are absent. What are the Government proceeding on if Professor McCrory—a really excellent person—has not really discovered how much compliance there is, or is not? He goes on to say that he asked regulators for their view but, while they could tell him how many prosecutions or statutory notices they issued, they were unable to draw any conclusions on their impact on overall compliance. In paragraph 138, he says that he does not wish to trespass on the sentencing discretion of criminal courts. At page 73—this is where he is highly constructive about going down the route that I urge the Government to follow; that is, to stick with the courts—he makes recommendations for restorative justice and gives examples of how this has been working in the USA and Australia.
	We know perfectly well that restorative justice can act partly through a tribunal, as it may do abroad, but it can act extremely well through the courts in this country. The Government are espousing that. When I was Attorney-General, I remember going with Mr Pollard as he then was—the chief constable of Thames Valley Police—to see an excellent example of restorative justice. It has been around for some time; all power to the Government's elbow if they can improve it in this and other areas. Professor McCrory also suggests that the Judicial Studies Board and the Sentencing Guidelines Council should give their mind to these matters. That would be extremely helpful.
	The criticisms of the magistrates' courts, the magistrates say, are unfair. They say that the basic complaint—that they do not give large enough penalties—occurs because the prosecutors do not tell them the material facts of a case in sufficient detail.
	My argument is that we are overturning a very well tried system—it involves hundreds of magistrates' courts in every part of the country. If magistrates or the Crown Court are told, for example—this is the Oxford case, which was used by the noble Lord, Lord Jones—that somebody has been dumping cans of toxic waste for which they have been paid £58,000 in an area in which it costs £167,000 to clear it up, they are not terribly likely to give a penalty of £28,000. If they did, that would have to be for a very special reason. Since this is the case of the noble Lord, Lord Jones, I ask the Minister whether he will find out who prosecuted and what the prosecutors told the court. That rather important bit of evidence has not yet been forthcoming; perhaps it will be forthcoming, with luck, by Third Reading. I ask the Government to think again seriously about this system. I beg to move.

Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I yield to nobody in my admiration of this House; I think that it is a wonderful House. What I find completely astonishing is the attendance here tonight. Reports from two of our Select Committees have drawn to our attention the fact that unprecedented powers are being conferred on a host of local authorities and regulators; so they are. I have not yet seen any answer to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, said in Committee. On the Labour Benches, if I exclude the Ministers, I see one Member; on the Lib-Dem Benches, there is one, and the number has sometimes risen to two; and on the Conservative Benches, there are eight. What we are being told by the noble and learned Lord is that we are faced with an extraordinary innovation that is not required at all. It is not required because we have a system of magistrates' courts and Crown Courts that can handle genuine cases where a breach of regulation is alleged.
	I shall be brief because it is now late in the evening and the noble and learned Lord has said everything that needs to be said, but there are three keys points here. First, we are going to have the same body in a series of cases—many cases—acting in the roles of investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and sentencer. Secondly, we are going to have a reversal of the burden of proof because the citizen, the company or whoever is at the receiving end of one of these decrees coming out of the regulator or local authority will find that he is said to be guilty of something, and the fine or penalty has already been imposed. It will be as it is with a parking ticket where, in effect, you start one down trying to prove that it was not your car. Thirdly, there is the human rights aspect. What has happened to due process in all this? It seems to have been completely ignored. Article 6 of the convention has been totally overlooked.
	In effect, we are being driven by a Bill based on the views of Professor Macrory, who starts with his concept of a compliance deficit. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, will recall the usual Irish joke: when somebody asked the question, "What is a compliance deficit?", counsel would reply—I cannot do the accent—"My Lords, on the hills of Connemara they talk of little else". Nobody has the faintest idea what this concept is and what the evidence is that can establish it. Therefore, I add my voice to that of the noble and learned Lord and say that it is time to ask the Government to supply answers to the questions that he put in Committee and has put again today, and to rethink their whole policy in this area before Third Reading.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has rendered the House and, more widely, those outside a signal service. Every minute of his speech was properly taken up in revealing a matter of great constitutional importance that is of great importance to all of us who are concerned with due process and the machinery of justice.
	I remind the House that in the Committee on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which has just been completed, Ministers were at pains, time after time, to assert their confidence in and admiration for the magistrates' courts. In these days of joined-up government, I hope the Minister who will reply will tell us why the Government are attaching such importance to bypassing the magistrates' courts in this important jurisdiction.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, we have this evening, as we did in Grand Committee, listened to an extremely eloquent and persuasive speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate. His main thrust—indeed, his main amendment—is to remove from the Bill the ministerial power to give a regulator power to issue civil sanctions.
	Perhaps I may be critical of the noble and learned Lord and of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. Both of them used, more than once, the language of the criminal law, saying that the same person was to be prosecutor, judge and jury in the same case, when they were talking about civil sanctions. There are benefits to the consumer and business in following the general principles of the Macrory report, to whose worth the noble and learned Lord gave due obeisance. The main thrust of the report is to give greater flexibility to the regulator and to provide for civil sanctions as a suitable alternative in some cases—in the less "egregious" cases, to use the Minister's word, which I would not have chosen myself—where, because the matter is less serious, the full panoply of the criminal law and prosecution in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court may not be warranted. Macrory suggests that there should be procedures for civil penalties instead.
	I am glad that on this occasion, but not in Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, has not attacked the provisions for stop orders or restitution orders. As far as I can see, he has confined his criticism to fixed and discretionary civil penalties.
	I would not differ from the noble and learned Lord in his claim that the magistrates' courts and the Crown Courts have, over the years, been extremely helpful in dealing with the criminal law in legislation such as the Trade Descriptions Act—I think that we both referred in Grand Committee to the fact that it is having its 40th anniversary this year. That Act has done a great deal of good in consumer protection and just as much good, if not more, in its deterrent effect. The fact that it is there and that there is the potential of criminal prosecution has been just as important as the actual cases that have taken place and that have, no doubt, registered with businesses up and down the country.
	As the noble and learned Lord admitted, conviction before a criminal court has a severe meaning for a respectable business. Certainly businesses regard the full force of the criminal law as most undesirable and to be avoided. That is the great benefit of the deterrent effect of the criminal law. But the criminal law is not always needed in every case of a business contravening a particular statutory requirement; it is not needed in every case to ensure compliance and to correct the deficiencies and the faults of business. The noble and learned Lord was teasing the Minister about his letter of 20 February and the use of the phrase "egregious offences". The letter said:
	"Like Professor Macrory, we believe that regulatory offences do not always merit a criminal prosecution and that the court should be reserved for the more egregious offences".
	That is surely sensible and right irrespective of the adjective. The greater flexibility introduced in Part 3 of the Bill is most useful.
	Of course, for civil sanctions as for criminal sanctions, there must be procedural safeguards, despite the fact that civil sanctions do not have the same dramatic effect and do not register as criminal convictions.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, the Minister said that egregious or more serious cases should go to the courts. Those were 40 per cent of all the cases that he produced. I have provided the figures on how many went to the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court: 15,385 went to the magistrates' courts and 76 went to the Crown Court. Now we are finding that 40 per cent are to go off to the courts and 60 per cent are to go into the new civil system. Did that not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Borrie?

Lord Borrie: Not really, my Lords. I imagine that there are more cases that are less deserving of criminal prosecution than those that are deserving of criminal prosecution. That is all that one needs to say on those figures. The greater flexibility that Part 3 provides is beneficial, so long as there are procedural safeguards—that was the point that I was making when the noble and learned Lord intervened. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord referred to them, but they require a notice with reasons of what the breach of the law has been, an opportunity for reply and a review. The regulator may then confirm his original view or not. If he confirms his original view, there is a right of appeal, albeit to an administrative tribunal.
	I do not bow to the noble and learned Lord in my regard for the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court, but tribunals are not novel in 2008. There is another anniversary: it is the half-century of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958, which was established following the famous Franks committee, under Sir Oliver Franks, as he was then, to ensure the impartiality, fairness, merit, speed and efficiency of tribunals, which had been questioned. In other words, tribunals have a high reputation, too, and they seem very suitable to be entrusted with the task of dealing with the kind of cases that we are talking about under Part 3 of this Bill.

Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he address the point that the language of Clause 38 speaks of a "relevant offence"? The whole of this is founded on the basis that there is an offence and that you get out of it—for example, under Clause 39(5)—only by having a defence that would completely answer a criminal conviction. In other words, the two systems are inextricably confused and the man in the street cannot possibly be looking at this in the way that the noble Lord is, which is that it is all civil penalties and nothing to do with the criminal law. It is all about offences.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but my answer to that is that of course the starting point is a criminal offence, for which there could be a criminal prosecution. The purpose of Part 3 is to provide an alternative to a prosecution and to get at the problem in a somewhat different way.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, we are in great danger of underestimating the impact of the introduction of this wide system on the individual. We are in danger of being shanghaied by the business community. This is not going to be easy. For example, if you privately abstract water, regulations and forms have to be filled in, with penalties attached to the abstraction licence if you do not stick to its conditions. There are lots of people in similar situations, living under regulations as individuals, and those people are used to the idea that, if they infringe, they go in front of the magistrates. There are social consequences of these courts being replaced by officials—in whom there is not the slightest degree of trust at the moment—who can be both judge and jury. This is going to take years for people to accept. Civil penalties for traffic offences, for example, do not do the relationship between the individual citizen and the police any good at all. On the whole, we do not like cameras or their consequences. This debate is about a compliance deficit which none of us can quite find and whose size and diversity we do not understand. We have been given no detailed evidence about the compliance deficit. We are completely underestimating the social consequences of what is proposed.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I sympathise with the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell. This part of the Bill that has not been properly addressed and, like my noble friend, I would like further assurances concerning the Bill empowering all regulators, and not only investigators and prosecutors, to become judge, jury and sentencers in their own cause. This is subject only to a right of appeal by the business or citizen concerned to a tribunal, probably the first-tier tribunal. It certainly appears to be a constitutional flaw within the Bill. I know that the Minister has no intention to affect negatively small businesses, small farmers, homeowners, drivers, small shopkeepers and others.
	I would thus be keen for the Minister to clarify the impact of the Bill on small businesses. I hope that conversations may now be set up between the Minister and my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell of Markyate. I would have said "before Third Reading", but we have run over time. The Minister has kindly said that there will be second day for this Report stage, which is likely to be 31 March at 7 o'clock in the evening. That will provide time for us to look seriously at this matter, for civil servants to give their views to the Minister, and for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, long though he may have waited, to have his say. He must feel that the House has listened sympathetically to him and is interested in the outcome. We thank the Minister.

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, for his eloquent contribution to the debate. He will not be surprised to hear me say that I regret that we cannot accept the amendments, which are profound and would render Part 3 of the Bill pointless.
	A large number of questions have been raised. On points of fact, I will be happy to write and have further discussion. I have received many notes from my staff with detailed answers, but given the time, I shall confine my remarks to restating the benefits and the purpose of the Bill.
	The new sanctions will enable regulators to enforce offences much more effectively. They provide a clear, more flexible and proportionate approach to enforcement, and should help reduce the level of non-compliance and enable a more co-operative and consensual approach to regulation.
	The noble and learned Lord has implied that criminal courts provide an adequate system and that there is no such thing as a compliance deficit. We should not forget that the powers in Part 3 are an alternative to criminal prosecution, and that the courts will have a continuing role to play in enforcing such offences. Professor Macrory said that the more serious and egregious cases should be dealt with by criminal courts to preserve the stigma of criminal conviction. Companies should not disregard criminal fines and sanctions as part of the normal cost of doing business.
	We should not forget that Professor Macrory made a number of recommendations that would help the criminal courts to tackle regulatory offences. He felt that the courts should be better equipped to deal with such offences by improving training, sentencing guidelines and information from prosecutors, and introducing new sentencing options. These recommendations were accepted by the Government in full and are being taken forward separately from this Bill.
	As my noble friend Lord Borrie said, criminal prosecutions are not an answer in every case. Not every breach of regulation will warrant a criminal prosecution but most regulators lack a viable alternative means of enforcement, which has left them overreliant on criminal prosecution as a means of tackling breaches of regulation. This is what Professor Macrory identified as the compliance deficit, where no enforcement action has been taken because the appropriate tool is not available to the regulator. These civil sanctions provide more flexible means of tackling regulatory non-compliance.
	Magistrates' courts do not always have the necessary tools to tackle regulatory non-compliance. These cases tend to make up less than 1 per cent of all cases heard in magistrates' courts. Philip Hampton, for example, found that a magistrate will typically see a health and safety offence once every 14 years. In contrast, regulators will be solely concerned with dealing with regulatory non-compliance in a particular field and will have a better overview of the seriousness of cases, the nature of the market, the profits made and the participants in that market—a view the regulator would have to take account of when it came to individuals as well as businesses. They will also be better equipped to set penalties that can provide an adequate sanction and deterrent, and can ensure that there are fewer regional variations. They will also be able to engage in more co-operative regulation by accepting undertakings from a business that is keen to put right any harm caused by its actions.
	The noble and learned Lord accepts that administrative penalties have a role to play in certain regulatory fields. It is worth remembering that 15 regulators already have access to civil sanction, including the Health and Safety Executive, the Financial Services Authority, the Trading Standards Institute, the Office of the Rail Regulator, the OFT, Ofcom, Ofwat and Ofgem. The noble and learned Lord also raised concerns about the scope of the new provisions. We have limited access to the new sanctions to those regulators listed in Schedule 5, those who enforce the offences listed in Schedule 6 and those who enforce offences in secondary legislation made under enactments listed in Schedule 7. There is no power in the Bill to add to this by order.
	The new powers will obviously be granted to regulators by ministerial order and require an affirmative resolution procedure. These new sanctions have also been subject to a thorough process of consultation, both as part of the original Macrory review and following publication of the draft Bill. They were welcomed by regulators, businesses, local authorities and representatives of the judiciary. I can provide quotes from the copious notes I have now received from representatives of the judiciary welcoming this.
	Concerns were raised in your Lordships' House about the safeguards in place. Incidentally, it is not right to say that Article 6 has been ignored in the design of the civil sanctions. Noble Lords will have seen in the Explanatory Notes that we have considered such matters and are sure that the Bill contains minimum procedural requirements to ensure that Article 6 is protected. We have also given detailed answers to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on its questions on Article 6 in a letter dated 14 January 2008. This letter is in the House Library.
	I will not accept that we have not considered these matters. We listened to concerns raised by noble Lords. We have taken these into account and significantly improved the Bill. We added details on the grounds for appeal, a requirement on the Minister to review the effectiveness of any order conferring powers after three years, a power for the Minister to suspend the use of new sanctions where they are persistently misused and to specify that a regulator must be satisfied to the criminal standard of proof prior to issuing a fixed monetary penalty or discretionary requirement—which is why the analogy with the traffic warden really does not apply. We have also added, during the Bill's progress through this House, a proposed notice of intent stage in the imposition of fixed monetary penalties, restricted the level of fixed monetary penalties and variable monetary penalties and how they can be set, and simplified the method of setting them, requiring regulators to publicise details of enforcement activity. That is in addition to the safeguards that were in place in the Bill on its introduction.
	I understand the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord about a system in which a regulator rather than a court will impose a sanction. As I have already outlined, the Bill has put in place many safeguards, which mean that there will be no disadvantage for persons who will be subject to a civil rather than criminal sanction. In fact, there may be an advantage in having a system administered by trained experts experienced in the regulatory field.
	Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52, 55 and 60 would prevent regulators imposing any of the new sanctions or accepting undertakings. Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 55 and 60 specifically would prevent regulators imposing any kind of monetary penalty. The noble and learned Lord's amendments suggest a fundamental disagreement with the introduction of the civil sanctions and that these sanctions should be removed from the Bill altogether. I regret that I do not see what more we could do to satisfy him.
	Amendment No. 52 would remove the exclusion of the police and prosecution authorities, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, from the definition of regulators in Clause 36. It would therefore allow these authorities to impose the civil sanctions in Part 3. As we stated in Committee, the new powers in Part 3 are an alternative to criminal prosecution and the latter will remain available to the police and prosecution authorities. The powers in Part 3 are designed specifically for use by regulators, who have closer ongoing relationships with and supervision of businesses, and it would not be appropriate to extend their usage to the police and prosecution authorities, which are primarily concerned with criminal matters. Under Clause 68, police and prosecution authorities will be able to refer matters to a regulator if they consider that a civil sanction may be more appropriate.
	Given the lateness of the hour, I have nothing further to add except that I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, have we not set up a Supreme Court to keep the judiciary away from the political process? In that case, why does the Minister cite the opinions that judges have expressed on this Bill as an argument to persuade the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, because they were consulted, as noble Lords would have expected us to consult them. If we had not done so, noble Lords would have asked why we had not.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, I am a little in doubt as to our procedural position at the moment. Are we just going on through the evening—

Lord Bach: My Lords, the usual channels have agreed that we will adjourn at 10 o'clock or around 10 o'clock, at the end of the debate on this group of amendments. The noble and learned Lord will have to decide whether to have a vote or withdraw his amendment. After that has finished, it is my intention to adjourn Report and then to adjourn the House.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, that is extremely helpful. I had hoped that we were going to come to an end by fluxion of time at 10 pm and that the Minister would have time to prepare the answers which he understandably found it difficult to give tonight to my questions. That not being the case, I can tell the House that it has always been my intention to withdraw the amendment at this stage and to return to it, in so far as the rules of the House allow, at Third Reading. I am extremely grateful to all the noble Lords who have taken part and I include the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who has immense knowledge of these matters. I would like to make quite a number of points in reply both to him and to the Minister, but if I start doing that now I will be another 10 or 15 minutes and that is not sensible. So at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and we will return to the substantive issues later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 50 to 52 not moved.]

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at 10.11 pm.